Opinion ID: 768582
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: A Legal Defense

Text: 15 Initially, Pike argues that the district court committed error in not allowing him to withdraw his guilty plea and go to trial because he had a viable, triable, and valid defense to the section 924(c)(1)(A) charge. In so arguing, Pike contends that he did not carry his shotgun in relation to his drug offense because there is no relationship between his shotgun and his drug offense. That is, according to Pike, the fact that he never brandished, made reference to, or committed any act relating to the shotgun during the drug transaction requires that he be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea. 16 Contrary to Pike's assertions, sufficient evidence exists to satisfy the in relation to element of section 924(c). As the Supreme Court has noted, the in relation to element of section 924(c)(1)(A) is satisfied by evidence that the defendant carried his weapon to further the purpose or effect of his crime. See Smith v. United States, 508 U.S. 223, 238 (1993) (emphasis added). That is, 17 [t]he during and in relation element of sec. 924(c)(1) has also certainly been met for if the drugs and gun are together in the same place it is nearly an inescapable conclusion that they satisfy the in relation to prong of sec. 924(c)(1). Molina, 102 F.3d at 932 (emphasis in original). The during and in relation to determination is based on the location of the firearm with respect to the drugs. Id. The relation between the firearm and the drugs--which is, after all, the core of the offense--is best established by their relation to each other, and not by the distance between owner and gun at the moment of arrest. Id. In order for a firearm to satisfy the in relation to prong of the offense it must at least 'facilitat[e], or ha[ve] the potential of facilitating,' the drug trafficking offense. Smith, 508 U.S. at 238, 113 S. Ct. at 2059 (quoting United States v. Stewart, 779 F.2d 538, 540 (9th Cir. 1985)). This explanation of the 'in relation to' element is valid precedent, unaffected by Bailey. Cotton, 101 F.3d at 56. The facts of this case reveal that the gun was located in a plastic bag positioned directly on top of the drugs and therefore Wilson would have had to, at the very least, remove the gun and hold it in order for him to gain access to the drugs. Thus, in this case, just as in Molina, the firearm was surely carried in relation to the crime when it was transported in a car in the same compartment that contain[ed] drugs possessed with the intent to distribute. Molina, 102 F.3d at 932. 18 Wilson, 125 F.3d at 1093 (emphasis in original). See also United States v. Hayes, 179 F.3d 1045, 1047 (7th Cir. 1999) (Drug dealers do not bring guns to a deal unless they wish to instill fear in their business associates or they feel the need for protection.); United States v. Hubbard, 61 F.3d 1261, 1270 (7th Cir. 1995) ([F]irearms are recognized as tools of the drug trade; thus, courts have sustained the admission of weapons evidence in narcotics cases because the possession of a weapon is often a hallmark of drug trafficking.); United States v. Cooper, 19 F.3d 1154, 1163 (7th Cir. 1994) ([t]his Court has previously held that weapons are 'tools of the trade' of drug dealers). Bearing this standard in mind, we are convinced that there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the in relation to element in this case; that is, that the shotgun in the trunk of the hatchback and the drugs were sufficiently connected. 19 Initially, let us point out that in both his plea agreement and again during his plea hearing Pike stated that he was guilty of the section 924(c)(1)(A) charge, specifically stating that he carried the shotgun in his car during the July 22nd drug transaction. This representation is entitled to a presumption of verity, see United States v. Ellison, 835 F.2d 687, 693 (7th Cir. 1987), and the district court is generally justified in discrediting the proffered reasons for the motion to withdraw and holding the defendant to [his] admissions at the Rule 11 hearing. United States v. Groll, 992 F.2d 755, 758 (7th Cir. 1993). 20 In addition to Pike's own representations, the evidence reflects that Pike carried the shotgun with him during each of the five drug transactions with the undercover officer; 5 that Pike's shotgun was accessible though not gracefully or rapidly so from within Pike's car; 6 and that Pike bought the shotgun during the time he was engaging in his drug trafficking activity. This evidence establishes that the presence of the shotgun in Pike's Chevy Camaro was neither the result of accident nor mere coincidence. See Smith, 508 U.S. at 238. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court's determination that there was a relationship between Pike's shotgun and his drug offense was not clearly erroneous, and therefore the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying Pike's motion to withdraw his guilty plea.