Opinion ID: 437587
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: James Hawkins

Text: 35 Hawkins' sufficiency challenges are directed at his convictions on Counts Two and Three. Finding no merit in his claim regarding Count Two, we affirm. We reverse as to Count Three. 36 Count Three charged that [i]n or about February, 1980, Harrell, Hall and Hawkins did travel and cause travel in interstate commerce from the Middle District of Florida to Oklahoma City, Oklahoma in violation of the Travel Act. The evidence relating to this charge consists of three courier runs Jerry Luke Owens made on Harrell's behalf to deliver drugs to Oklahoma City. The Oklahoma City route ended with Owens' arrest on February 18, 1980. 37 Hawkins argues that the evidence linking him to Harrell, Hall or the Tampa Outlaws on or before the date of Owens' arrest is too scant to support his conviction on Count Three. Owens testified that he joined the Tampa Outlaws about '78 and left the chapter in the summer of '80. He recalled meeting Hawkins after joining the Tampa chapter, but he could not remember when. Owens was asked who witnessed his conversations with Harrell about the Oklahoma City trips, and the following exchange ensued: 38 Q. Do you remember if anybody else was there when Roadblock talked to you about going to Oklahoma City? 39 A. Well, his partners was usually around. 40 Q. And based on your observation, who are you referring to by his partners? 41 A. J.J. and Hawk [Hawkins]. 42 The first firm evidence implicating Hawkins in Tampa Outlaws drug dealing dates from the summer of 1980, when Hawkins drove Owens to Detroit in his Lincoln for a two-week trip to peddle cocaine and quaaludes. In recounting the story of this trip, Owens admitted that he was having difficulty remembering dates. He could remember when the Detroit trip occurred only by recalling that the cherries were ripe in Detroit at the time. Detective Grady Snyder of the Tampa Police Department, who had monitored Outlaw activities since 1976, stated that he first heard that Hawkins was in the Tampa area in September 1980. Although Hawkins told Paul Clendening in 1981 that he, J.J. Hall and Harrell were partners in cocaine dealing, the record establishes that Hawkins was the last of the three to join the enterprise. 43 We agree that this evidence is too slender a reed to support Hawkins' conviction of the Oklahoma City Travel Act violation. The fact that Harrell's partners were usually around and that Owens regarded Hall and Hawkins as Harrell's partners cannot prove that Hawkins was present at any of the courier meetings in question. At best, the evidence establishes that Owens did not know when Hawkins arrived in Tampa, but that after he did arrive, he was usually present during Harrell's discussions with couriers. Owens' testimony necessarily leaves reasonable doubts whether Hawkins actually listened in on the Oklahoma City conversations. 44 Nor is Hawkins liable as a principal for substantive offenses committed and completed before he joined the drug trafficking conspiracy. [A] latecomer cannot be convicted as a principal for substantive offenses which were committed in furtherance of the conspiracy before he joined it or after he withdrew from it. Gradsky v. United States, 376 F.2d 993, 996 (5th Cir.), vacated in part on other grounds, 389 U.S. 18, 88 S.Ct. 1, 19 L.Ed.2d 18, cert. denied, 389 U.S. 908, 88 S.Ct. 224, 19 L.Ed.2d 224 (1967); see Levine v. United States, 383 U.S. 265, 86 S.Ct. 925, 15 L.Ed.2d 737 (1966); United States v. Knippenberg, 502 F.2d 1056, 1059-60 (7th Cir.1974); United States v. Apollo, 476 F.2d 156, 162 (5th Cir.1973). We therefore reverse as to Count Three. 45 The proof of the Detroit trip requires affirmance of Hawkins' conviction on Count Two. That count charged Hawkins, Harrell and Hall with knowingly possessing with intent to distribute cocaine [i]n or about February 1980 ... at Tampa in the Middle District of Florida. The evidence adduced at trial established possession during summer 1980 at the earliest, rather than in February 1980 as alleged in the indictment. A variance between dates alleged and dates proved will not trigger reversal, however, as long as the date proved falls within the statute of limitations and before the return date of the indictment. United States v. Phillips, 664 F.2d 971, 1036 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1136, 102 S.Ct. 2965, 73 L.Ed.2d 1354 (1982). Because we detect no likelihood that the variance subjected Hawkins to undue surprise or exposed him to the possibility of a second prosecution for the same offense, see id., we affirm.