Court Opinion

ID: 9901558
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-22 01:00:31.36545+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:35.161595
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-20375         Document: 00516976551             Page: 1      Date Filed: 11/21/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                                         United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                          Fifth Circuit

                                      ____________                                      FILED
                                                                                November 21, 2023
                                       No. 22-20375                                   Lyle W. Cayce
                                      ____________                                         Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Sye Newton,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Southern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 4:19-CR-816-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Jolly, Engelhardt, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          A jury convicted Appellant Sye Newton of bank robbery and
   brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence following the 2019 armed
   robbery of a Houston, Texas bank. Newton appeals his conviction. 1 We
   AFFIRM.

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
          1
            Once on appeal, Newton moved this appellate court to convene an evidentiary
   hearing to explore a supposed alibi that would undermine his conviction. We DENY this
   motion.
Case: 22-20375      Document: 00516976551           Page: 2   Date Filed: 11/21/2023

                                    No. 22-20375

          On March 25, 2019, a man, subsequently acknowledged to be Newton,
   dressed in a hijab and with a semiautomatic pistol in his hand, entered IBC
   Bank on South Kirkwood Drive in Houston, Texas.              Newton ordered
   everyone to get down, demanded 50- and 100-dollar bills, and threatened to
   shoot bank tellers for noncompliance.           He fled the bank with about
   $15,740.00 cash.
          Following the robbery, a bank customer followed the getaway car and
   photographed its license plate. Two days later, police found this vehicle—
   registered to Newton’s girlfriend—abandoned outside a private residence in
   Houston, impounded it, obtained a search warrant, and searched it.
   However, it was not until months later that police apprehended Newton and
   his girlfriend at a traffic stop in San Antonio, which led to his arrest for the
   Houston robbery. While in jail, Newton agreed to a custodial interrogation
   relating to the Houston robbery.        Police Mirandized and interviewed
   Newton, who admitted that he robbed the Houston IBC bank. Prior to trial,
   Newton moved to suppress evidence found in his girlfriend’s car and the
   statement made to the police while in jail. The district court largely denied
   Newton’s motions but did exclude certain pre-mirandized statements made
   by Newton. Newton went to trial and was convicted by the jury.
          Now on appeal, Newton argues that the district court erred in failing
   to suppress evidence from the automobile search because the search warrant
   was insufficient. Newton, however, lacks standing to challenge the search of
   his girlfriend’s car because he had no possessory interest in the car. United
   States v. Hernandez, 647 F.3d 216, 219 (5th Cir. 2011). Furthermore, the car
   was abandoned, confirming that Newton lacked the reasonable expectation
   of privacy necessary to challenge its search. United States v. Colbert, 474 F.2d
   174, 176 (5th Cir. 1973) (en banc).

                                          2
Case: 22-20375      Document: 00516976551           Page: 3    Date Filed: 11/21/2023

                                     No. 22-20375

          Second, Newton argues that police coercion rendered his confession
   involuntary. Newton alleges that his confession was coerced because police
   (1) indicated they would charge Newton’s girlfriend if he did not confess, (2)
   misrepresented the strength of their case, (3) indicated they would keep
   Newton’s case in state court where the penalties are less severe, and (4) took
   advantage of the situational conditions, i.e., recent arrest, lack of sleep for
   past 24 hours, interview in a small prison office room, and he had not yet been
   charged or arraigned.
          When a defendant challenges the voluntariness of a statement, the
   Government bears the burden of proving voluntariness by a preponderance
   of the evidence. United States v. Reynolds, 367 F.3d 294, 297–98 (5th Cir.
   2004) (per curiam). A statement is voluntary if, “under the totality of the
   circumstances, the statement is ‘the product of the accused’s free and
   rational choice.’” Id. at 298 (quoting United States v. Garcia Abrego, 141 F.3d
   142, 170 (5th Cir. 1998)).
          Here, the evidence shows that the police did not cross any of the
   forbidden lines that could lead to reversible coercion. Indeed, we have in
   other cases held that interrogators may even employ deceptive means while
   interrogating a criminal defendant so long as it does not “deprive[] the
   defendant of knowledge essential to his ability to understand the nature of his
   rights [or] consequences of abandoning them.” United States v. Bell, 367 F.3d
   452, 461 (5th Cir. 2004); see also Self v. Collins, 973 F.2d 1198, 1205 (5th Cir.
   1992). None of the police conduct in the instant case even approached the
   negative or deceptive tactics seen in cases in which we upheld the confession.
   Newton’s lack of sleep does not by itself render his confession involuntary.
   Reynolds, 367 F.3d at 297-99. Nor did the officers threaten Newton or display
   their weapons.     Moreover, the district court found that Newton was
   intelligent and had a clear understanding of the criminal justice system.
   Additionally, police interrogated Newton in an office—not a jail cell—while

                                          3
Case: 22-20375       Document: 00516976551         Page: 4   Date Filed: 11/21/2023

                                    No. 22-20375

   Newton was free of any restraints. The circumstances indicate that the
   interview was not threatening and that Newton spoke willingly. In sum, the
   totality of the circumstances of the interview establishes the voluntariness of
   Newton’s confession. United States v. Broussard, 80 F.3d 1025, 1033 (5th Cir.
   1996).
            For the reasons given above, Newton’s conviction is
                                                                  AFFIRMED.

                                         4