Court Opinion

ID: 9841225
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-21 18:00:58.099449+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:42:37.943729
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50276        Document: 00516903062             Page: 1      Date Filed: 09/21/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 22-50276
                                    Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                    ____________                             September 21, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Travis Wayne Vavra,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Western District of Texas
                               USDC No. 3:20-CR-65-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Elrod, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Travis Wayne Vavra was convicted by a jury of one count of
   transportation of a minor (R.S.) with intent to engage in criminal sexual
   activity, beginning in September 2015 and continuing through June 2019, and
   one count of possession of child pornography involving a prepubescent minor
   on or about December 6, 2019, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment.

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50276      Document: 00516903062           Page: 2     Date Filed: 09/21/2023

                                     No. 22-50276

   The child pornography charge pertained to material discovered on Vavra’s
   black Samsung cellphone which was found in his motel room shortly after his
   arrest. Prior to trial, Vavra filed a motion to sever the child pornography
   charge from the transportation of a minor charge, alleging misjoinder under
   Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 8(a) and prejudicial joinder under
   Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 14. The district court denied the motion.
   The district court also denied Vavra’s pretrial request to exclude proposed
   testimony from his two step-grandsons about information they observed on
   Vavra’s cellphone.
          The Government presented evidence that in 2015, Vavra, a truck
   driver, paid R.S.’s mother to allow R.S., who was nine years old at the time,
   to begin traveling with Vavra on out of state trips. R.S. rode in Vavra’s truck
   on many trips from 2015 through the summer of 2019 and sometimes stayed
   at Vavra’s son’s house and at his hotel room after he moved out of the house.
   In the fall of 2019, R.S. informed his father that Vavra had sexually abused
   him. At trial, R.S. testified, in detail, that Vavra first abused him on a trip in
   the fall of 2015 and continued to sexually abuse him on subsequent trips, at
   Vavra’s son’s house, at Vavra’s sister’s house, and in Vavra’s hotel room.
   The abuse included oral sex and anal penetration. Vavra also showed R.S.
   pornographic videos on his phone involving children who appeared to be
   between the ages of 3 and 14. A nurse testified that she performed a forensic
   sexual assault examination of R.S. after his outcry and determined that he had
   sustained injuries consistent with “trauma related to penetration.” Text
   messages revealed that after R.S. accused Vavra of sexual assault, Vavra
   instructed him to delete information from his phone.
          Vavra’s step-grandsons, Aaron and Nathan, testified that Vavra also
   molested them and that they had observed pictures of nude children while
   using Vavra’s cellphone. Aaron explained that he took a trip in Vavra’s truck
   when he was 12 or 13 years old and that on the trip, Vavra groped his genitals.

                                           2
Case: 22-50276       Document: 00516903062           Page: 3   Date Filed: 09/21/2023

                                      No. 22-50276

   Aaron testified that sometime around 2018, he saw a couple of pictures of
   nude 6- to-12-year-old boys and a toddler urinating on Vavra’s phone; he also
   explained that the phone’s search history included an entry for “boys in
   bathing suits.” Nathan testified that when he was about 13 years old, Vavra
   came into his bedroom and touched his genitals on multiple occasions.
   Nathan also observed multiple pictures of nude five-to six-year-old boys and
   boys modeling underwear, but he testified that the pictures were “not sexual-
   like.”
            When Vavra was arrested, FBI agents discovered pictures and videos
   depicting child sex abuse in a subfolder on Vavra’s black Samsung Galaxy
   phone. At the time of his arrest, Vavra also admitted to posting index cards
   addressed to parents and boys offering money for children to travel with him
   in his truck; agents discovered materials to make the cards in Vavra’s hotel
   room and truck. At trial, Vavra testified on his own behalf. He denied
   sexually abusing R.S. or touching Aaron or Nathan, and he claimed that he
   never downloaded or viewed child pornography.
            On appeal, Vavra argues that (1) the district court erred in denying his
   motion to sever the two counts; (2) the district court abused its discretion in
   allowing testimony from Aaron and Nathan about the material they observed
   on his cellphone; and (3) the record is devoid of evidence that he knowingly
   possessed the child pornography found on his cellphone after his arrest.
            We review whether charges were properly joined under Rule 8(a) de
   novo, subject to a harmless error analysis. United States v. Huntsberry, 956
   F.3d 270, 287 (5th Cir. 2020). If the initial joinder is proper, we review the
   district court’s denial of the motion to sever under Rule 14(a) for abuse of
   discretion. Id.
            Rule 8(a) allows two or more offenses to be charged together if they
   “are of the same or similar character, or are based on the same act or

                                           3
Case: 22-50276      Document: 00516903062           Page: 4      Date Filed: 09/21/2023

                                     No. 22-50276

   transaction, or are connected with or constitute parts of a common scheme
   or plan.” Fed. R. Crim. Proc. 8(a). Even if counts are properly joined
   under Rule 8(a), the district court may grant a severance under Rule 14(a) if
   the joinder “appears to prejudice a defendant or the government.” Fed. R.
   Crim. Proc. 14(a); see Huntsberry, 956 F.3d at 287. Error under either rule
   is only reversible if there is “specific and compelling prejudice” that resulted
   in an unfair trial. United States v. Ballis, 28 F.3d 1399, 1408 (5th Cir. 1994);
   United States v. Bullock, 71 F.3d 171, 174 (5th Cir. 1995).
          Even if we assume that the two charges were improperly joined, Vavra
   has not shown that he suffered specific and compelling prejudice. See Ballis,
   28 F.3d at 1408; Bullock, 71 F.3d at 174. Vavra complains about delay in his
   trial setting for the transportation charge, but he fails to point to any facts or
   authority indicating that the joinder violated his speedy trial rights.
   Moreover, no prejudice inures to a defendant where “a severance of counts
   would not result in a segregation of evidence.” Ballis, 28 F.3d at 1408-09.
   Here, had Vavra been tried separately on the transportation and child
   pornography counts, evidence of each offense would have been admissible in
   the trial for the other. See Fed. R. Evid. 404(b); Fed. R. Evid. 414;
   Ballis, 28 F.3d at 1408-09. Further, the district court instructed the jury that
   it was required to consider the evidence pertaining to each count separately,
   that its verdict on one count should not affect its verdict on the other, and
   that Vavra was only on trial for the crimes alleged in the indictment, not for
   any past similar acts. Because juries are generally presumed to follow their
   instructions, the district court’s instructions cut against a finding of unfair
   prejudice. See United States v. Hickerson, 489 F.3d 742, 746 (5th Cir. 2007).
          As for Vavra’s challenge to Aaron and Nathan’s testimony about what
   they observed on his phone, we need not decide whether the testimony was
   admissible or whether it was unduly prejudicial because its admission was
   harmless. See United States v. Gutierrez-Mendez, 752 F.3d 418, 423-24 (5th

                                           4
Case: 22-50276        Document: 00516903062          Page: 5   Date Filed: 09/21/2023

                                      No. 22-50276

   Cir. 2014). The Government has the burden of establishing harmlessness
   beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. McCall, 553 F.3d 821, 827 (5th
   Cir. 2008). An error is harmless unless it affects the defendant’s substantial
   rights. Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a). Reversal is required if “there is a
   reasonable possibility that the improperly admitted evidence contributed to
   the conviction.” United States v. Flores, 640 F.3d 638, 643 (5th Cir. 2011)
   (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We have held that the
   erroneous admission of extrinsic evidence is harmless where there was
   considerable or ample other evidence of the charged crime, see id.; McCall,
   553 F.3d at 829, and also where “the impermissibly admitted evidence was
   too weak and benign to give us concern that it affected the verdict,”
   Gutierrez-Mendez, 752 F.3d at 427.
             Here, there was considerable and ample evidence—excluding the
   challenged testimony—demonstrating that Vavra was sexually interested in
   children, that he transported R.S. in order to sexually abuse him, and that he
   possessed the child pornography on his black Samsung Galaxy phone. See
   Flores, 640 F.3d at 643; McCall, 553 F.3d at 829. Relative to the other
   evidence presented, Aaron and Nathan’s testimony about what they
   observed on Vavra’s phone was not particularly damaging to Vavra’s case
   especially given that the witnesses did not testify that they saw anything
   overtly sexual. See Gutierrez-Mendez, 752 F.3d at 427. Accordingly, any error
   in the admission of this testimony did not affect Vavra’s substantial rights.
   See id.
             Finally, because Vavra failed to renew his motion for acquittal at the
   close of all the evidence, he did not properly preserve his challenge to the
   sufficiency of evidence supporting his knowing possession of child
   pornography. See United States v. Smith, 878 F.3d 498, 502-03 (5th Cir.
   2017). Thus, he must demonstrate “a manifest miscarriage of justice, which
   occurs only where the record is devoid of evidence pointing to guilt or the

                                            5
Case: 22-50276      Document: 00516903062          Page: 6   Date Filed: 09/21/2023

                                    No. 22-50276

   evidence is so tenuous that a conviction would be shocking.” Id. at 503
   (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
          Although there was evidence indicating that Vavra allowed others to
   use his cellphone at times, the black Samsung Galaxy phone where the child
   pornography was discovered belonged to Vavra and was found in his hotel
   room. R.S. testified that Vavra showed him pornography on his black
   Samsung Galaxy phone, and there is no indication that expert knowledge was
   required to access the folder where the videos were downloaded. Further,
   the testimony regarding Vavra’s alleged acts of sexual molestation
   demonstrated his sexual interest in children. See United States v. Terrell, 700
   F.3d 755, 766 (5th Cir. 2012). In light of this evidence, the jury was free to
   reject any plausible alternative explanation that someone else may have used
   Vavra’s phone to download the videos. See United States v. Woerner, 709
   F.3d 527, 537 (5th Cir. 2013). Vavra therefore fails to show that the record
   was devoid of evidence that he knowingly possessed the child pornography
   discovered on his phone. See Smith, 878 F.3d at 503.
          AFFIRMED.

                                         6