Opinion ID: 809227
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Evidence for Count Two

Text: The defendants next challenge the sufficiency of the evidence for a conviction under Count Two, the crime of attempting to possess cocaine with intent to distribute. See 21 U.S.C. § 846. (Although the wording of Counts One and Two are highly similar, “conspiracy” and “attempt” are two separate criminal offenses.) To prove attempt, the Government had to show not just that the defendants acted with the intent to possess the 10 Nos. 10-3725, 10-3726, 11-2262 & 11-2439 cocaine, but also that the defendants took a “substantial step” toward possessing it. See United States v. Dennis, 115 F.3d 524, 534-35 (7th Cir. 1997). A substantial step is “something more than mere preparation, but less than the last act necessary before the actual commission of the substantive crime.” United States v. Barnes, 230 F.3d 311, 315 (7th Cir. 2000) (citing United States v. Rovetuso, 768 F.2d 809, 821 (7th Cir. 1985)). To qualify as substantial, the step “must be of such a nature that a reasonable observer viewing it in context could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that it was undertaken in accordance with a design to violate the statute.” Barnes, 230 F.3d at 315. Here, Mayfield, Kindle, and Ward attended a meeting prior to the planned robbery to discuss their plans in detail with Gomez and each other. Mayfield and Kindle asked logistical questions and Ward commented on how he thought the drugs should be divided. We have previously noted the importance of conversations like these in establishing a substantial step for a showing of attempt. See, e.g., United States v. Magana, 118 F.3d 1173, 1198-99 (7th Cir. 1997); United States v. Wilks, 46 F.3d 640, 645 (7th Cir. 1995). Those cases involved attempted drug sales rather than an attempted stash-house robbery, but the planning involved is similar to that which occurred in this case. The Government’s strongest evidence of a substantial step came on the day of the planned robbery. All four of the defendants, now including White, met Gomez in their brown van and indicated their readiness to proNos. 10-3725, 10-3726, 11-2262 & 11-2439 11 ceed with the robbery. They still didn’t know the exact location of the stash house, but that doesn’t matter.3 They arrived armed with an assortment of guns, ski masks, and other implements for a robbery. They even followed Gomez in their brown van to the site where they planned to store the drugs after the robbery. Further, although White was relatively new to the group, he confirmed with Gomez that he knew the plan, and authorities recovered a ski mask from his pocket. The defendants rely heavily on United States v. Cea, 914 F.2d 881 (7th Cir. 1990), in their effort to downplay their steps toward attempt. In Cea, we overturned a finding of attempt because there was not ample evidence of a substantial step to purchase drugs; specifically, the authorities botched the investigation by arresting Cea too soon (as soon as he left his house). The Government then failed to produce any evidence at Cea’s trial to show that the defendant left his house intending to meet his drug dealer. There was nothing to show that the defendant knew where to meet with his dealer or whether he even had the money required to purchase the drugs. In this case, the evidence 3 Mayfield appears to argue that because there was no known stash-house location—and perhaps because the stash house was fictitious to begin with—he cannot be found guilty. Although the argument is not altogether clear, we assume he means that he cannot be found guilty of attempting to rob a place that doesn’t exist. This would be wrong; impossibility is not a defense to the crime of attempt. See United States v. Mannava, 565 F.3d 412, 416 (7th Cir. 2009). 12 Nos. 10-3725, 10-3726, 11-2262 & 11-2439 showed that the defendants all took several steps beyond leaving their houses. They met with Gomez on the day of the planned robbery after Gomez claimed to have learned the location of the stash house. They spoke of their readiness to proceed with the imminent robbery. And of course, they carried with them the implements needed to carry out a crime. We will not overturn the jury’s finding of attempt; the steps taken toward the attempt to possess here were myriad and, taken together, quite substantial.