Opinion ID: 2675810
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: We review whether the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction de novo, view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, and draw all reasonable inferences and credibility choices in the government’s favor. See United States v. Joseph, 709 F.3d 1082, 1093 (11th Cir.), petition for cert. filed, No. 13-5319 (U.S. July 10, 2013). Possession of a firearm may be actual or constructive. United States v. Perez, 661 F.3d 568, 576 (11th Cir. 2011) (per curiam). A defendant’s knowing participation in a joint criminal venture in which a particular firearm is intended to play a central part permits the jury to conclude reasonably the defendant constructively possessed that gun. Id. This is true even if the defendant never intended to use the gun, because he shares his coparticipants’ intent and jointly possesses the gun as part of the criminal enterprise surrounding its possession. Id. at 577. 6 Case: 13-11224 Date Filed: 05/27/2014 Page: 7 of 8 Grajales does not contest the terms “crime of violence” and “drug trafficking crime” in § 924(c) include the robbery and drug crimes charged, see 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(2), (3), or that the gun recovered during his arrest was possessed “in furtherance” of the offenses, see United States v. Woodard, 531 F.3d 1352, 1362 (11th Cir. 2008). Grajales challenges only the jury’s finding he possessed a gun in this case. The jury heard: (1) while riding in a car on the night of the planned robbery, Grajales told the CI guns were “inside the hood” and others were armed, R at 2968; and (2) Grajales helped a co-conspirator hide a gun in one of the cars. Based on the numerous discussions between Grajales and other co-conspirators regarding the need for weapons during the robbery, the jury also was entitled to find Grajales knowingly participated in crimes in which the recovered handgun was intended to play a central part. See Perez, 661 F.3d at 576-77. We conclude there was sufficient evidence to support Grajales’s § 924(c)(1)(A) conviction, because the jury could have determined Grajales knew about the recovered gun. 3