Opinion ID: 3005912
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Trial Testimony of Defendant and Clinton

Text: At trial, both Defendant and Clinton testified. As relevant to this appeal, Clinton testified that he and Defendant had talked about robbing the Walgreens Store three or four times prior to the actual day of the robbery. Clinton noted that they did not really have a plan, but both decided to bring guns because they “never [knew] what might happen.” On the night of the robbery, he and Defendant met up earlier and discussed “a few things,” including that Defendant would “watch [Clinton’s] back” during the robbery. Clinton planned to bring a gun with him and showed the gun to Defendant. Defendant handled the gun and polished it with his t-shirt. Defendant also carried his own gun, a Glock .45. When the two men arrived at the Walgreens, they paced around the store for a few minutes, going in and out of the store to avoid suspicion. When he saw store manager William Feeney coming out of the office, Clinton forced Feeney back into the office. Prior to Clinton going into the office, Defendant told him to “go, go ahead and go,” which Clinton took to mean that he should go ahead and commit the robbery. 3 Case: 14-15064 Date Filed: 09/30/2015 Page: 4 of 18 While Clinton was in the office, he could see, through the office window, that Defendant was acting as a look-out to make sure no one else tried to come into the office. After Clinton assaulted Feeney, he ran out of the office. Then he and Defendant ran out of the store and drove away in the car that Clinton had driven to the scene. Clinton further admitted that, when arrested, he had lied to the police several times about the robbery of the Walgreens, including initially telling the police that another individual, not Defendant, had robbed the Walgreens with him. On cross-examination, Clinton acknowledged that he was testifying pursuant to a plea agreement and that, as part of the agreement, the Government had agreed to drop the charges or reduce his sentence on the two robberies, which carried a cumulative mandatory-minimum sentence of 32 years’ imprisonment. He agreed that he would do whatever was in his best interest to reduce his sentence. Clinton further acknowledged that he had told the police that he was schizophrenic and bipolar, had memory problems, and used drugs that affected his memory. Defendant testified in his own defense. He stated that he arrived at the Walgreens separately from Clinton, believing that he was to meet Clinton at the Walgreens before going to a club together. After going into the store once to ask an employee about some medication, Defendant continued to go in and out of the store: once to use the bathroom and other times because he did not like waiting outside. Defendant denied having any knowledge that Clinton planned to rob the 4 Case: 14-15064 Date Filed: 09/30/2015 Page: 5 of 18 store or that he was carrying a gun. (Defendant also denied that he was carrying a gun.) According to Defendant, as he was coming out of the bathroom, Clinton ran past him, at which point Defendant saw that Clinton was carrying a gun. Defendant became scared and ran out of the store with Clinton, but did not get into the car with him. On cross-examination, Defendant acknowledged that his testimony conflicted with earlier testimony from a store employee about how many times he had been in and out of the bathroom. 1 As to footage from the surveillance camera that showed him walking out of the Walgreens ahead of Clinton, Defendant said that this demonstrated nothing more than unlucky timing on his part. That is, Defendant just happened to be leaving the bathroom and walking out of the store at the very same moment Clinton fled the office where he had assaulted Feeney. Defendant also admitted that he had lied to the police several times about whether he was at the Walgreens on the night of the robbery. As noted, the jury convicted Defendant of aiding and abetting an attempted armed robbery, but acquitted him of aiding and abetting the use of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence. 1 Store employee Melissa Roth had previously testified that Defendant had gone in and out of the bathroom several times that night. 5 Case: 14-15064 Date Filed: 09/30/2015 Page: 6 of 18 C. Presentence Investigation Report and Sentencing Hearing After the jury’s verdict, the probation office prepared Defendant’s Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”). The PSR calculated a base offense level of 20, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(a). Because a firearm was brandished during the commission of the offense, the PSR applied a five-level enhancement under § 2B3.1(b)(2)(C). The PSR also applied a separate two-level enhancement because bodily injury was caused to a victim of the offense, pursuant to § 2B3.1(b)(3)(A), yielding a total offense level of 27. Defendant had three criminal history points, which yielded a criminal history category of II. Based on a total offense level of 27 and his criminal history category of II, Defendant’s guideline range was 78 to 97 months’ imprisonment. Prior to and at his sentencing hearing, Defendant objected to any enhancement for brandishing a weapon or for causing bodily injury to a victim, both of which were based on Clinton’s conduct. Defendant argued that the brandishing enhancement could be applied only if the Government had proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant had advance knowledge that Clinton possessed a gun at the time of the robbery. And Defendant argued that the Government had failed to meet that burden because its evidence rested entirely on Clinton’s testimony, which Defendant deemed not credible. He further contended that enhancing his sentence based on acquitted conduct violated his Sixth 6 Case: 14-15064 Date Filed: 09/30/2015 Page: 7 of 18 Amendment right to trial. Defendant similarly argued that the bodily injury enhancement was improperly applied to him because Feeney’s injuries were inflicted by Clinton’s use of his gun and, once again, Defendant argued that he had no advance knowledge that Clinton would have a gun. The district court overruled both objections. The court determined that, for the above enhancements to apply, the Government had to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the relevant conduct at issue was reasonably foreseeable. Looking at the totality of the circumstances of the robbery, along with the surveillance video and Clinton’s and Defendant’s testimony, the court concluded that the Government had proven by a preponderance of the evidence that it was reasonably foreseeable to Defendant that Clinton would brandish a gun during the robbery. As a logical extension of that conclusion, it was also reasonably foreseeable that Clinton might injure someone during the course of the robbery, particularly given the fact that he was carrying a gun. After considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, the court sentenced Defendant to 78 months’ imprisonment.