Court Opinion

ID: 9555746
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-15 00:00:33.436188+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:41:53.088150
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-10620         Document: 00516857123             Page: 1      Date Filed: 08/14/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 22-10620
                                     Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                     ____________                                August 14, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Anthony Lennell Acy,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Northern District of Texas
                                USDC No. 3:21-CR-70-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Stewart, and Southwick, Circuit
   Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Anthony Lennell Acy appeals his conviction of one count of sex
   trafficking of a child (count one) and one count of sex trafficking by force,
   fraud, or coercion (count two), as well as the resulting concurrent terms of
   365 months of imprisonment. He argues that the district court erred by
   admitting evidence of his relationship with Adult Victim One (AV1) from
          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-10620       Document: 00516857123         Page: 2   Date Filed: 08/14/2023

                                    No. 22-10620

   January 2020 until his arrest on March 18, 2020, and evidence relating to his
   March 18, 2020, arrest as intrinsic evidence. He argues that such evidence
   is extrinsic evidence, and thus only admissible to prove “motive,
   opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of
   mistake, or lack of accident” under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). In light
   of Acy’s arguments on appeal, he necessarily complains of trial testimony by
   multiple witnesses and multiple exhibits presented at trial.
            Where the issue is preserved, we review “a trial court’s decision to
   admit evidence for abuse of discretion.” United States v. Lugo-Lopez, 833
   F.3d 453, 460 (5th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
   Any abuse of discretion is subject to a harmless error analysis. United States
   v. Hawley, 516 F.3d 264, 268 (5th Cir. 2008). Acy preserved at trial his
   objection to certain testimony and exhibits. We need not “parse the record
   statement by statement because [Acy’s] argument fails under the abuse of
   discretion standard.” United States v. Moparty, 11 F.4th 280, 295 (5th Cir.
   2021).
            A majority of the evidence to which Acy objects is evidence of the
   offense charged in count two of the superseding indictment. It is not
   evidence concerning any other crime, wrong, or act. See Gurrola, 898 F.3d
   at 536-37; United States v. Freeman, 434 F.3d 369, 374 (5th Cir. 2005). Such
   evidence includes, inter alia, AV1’s testimony about how she met Acy and
   the beginning of their relationship, Acy’s demand that she pay him his money
   back in commercial sex, her inability to leave, the violence and threats she
   experienced from Acy, how Acy would find commercial sex customers for
   AV1 and keep all of the proceeds, AV1’s first attempt to leave, her belief that
   Acy carried a firearm, the events leading up to and including the Austin trip,
   her request that her mother arrange her rescue from Austin, and her
   testimony that she was scared for her life.        Likewise, it includes law
   enforcement testimony regarding the recovery operation of AV1 in Austin on

                                          2
Case: 22-10620        Document: 00516857123         Page: 3   Date Filed: 08/14/2023

                                     No. 22-10620

   March 18, 2020, many of the items found in Acy’s vehicle upon his March
   18, 2020, arrest, and messages and data found on Acy’s phone. Because this
   evidence was evidence of the crime charged, the district court did not abuse
   its discretion in admitting it. See Gurrola, 898 F.3d at 536-37; Lugo-Lopez,
   833 F.3d at 460.
             To the extent the remaining law enforcement testimony regarding
   Acy’s arrest on March 18, 2020, or messages and data found on Acy’s phone,
   could be considered “[e]vidence of crimes, wrongs, [or] other bad acts,”
   such evidence was intrinsic to the charged offense. Gurrola, 898 F.3d at 536.
   Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting this
   evidence as intrinsic. See id. at 536-37; Lugo-Lopez, 833 F.3d at 460.
             To the extent that the full extraction of Acy’s phone does contain
   evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts extrinsic to the charged offense and
   the district court abused its discretion in admitting the full extraction into
   evidence, “the error is harmless given other substantial evidence of [Acy’s]
   guilt” as to count two of the superseding indictment. Lugo-Lopez, 833 F.3d
   at 461.
             Acy did not adequately brief, and has thus waived, his argument that
   AV1’s testimony about his firearm was “speculative hearsay.” See United
   States v. Stalnaker, 571 F.3d 428, 439-40 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v.
   Miranda, 248 F.3d 434, 443 (5th Cir. 2001).
             The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

                                           3