Court Opinion

ID: 9374650
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-23 18:00:59.835173+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:51.929984
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 23 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No.    22-10015

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No.
                                                2:19-cr-00269-JCM-EJY-1
 v.

LESEAN ROGER DENNIS BRADDOCK,                   MEMORANDUM*
Jr.,

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Nevada
                    James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted February 13, 2023**
                            San Francisco, California

Before: MILLER, SANCHEZ, and MENDOZA, Circuit Judges.

      Lesean Braddock, Jr. appeals his jury conviction for one count of conspiracy

to commit interference with commerce by robbery, two counts of interference with

commerce by robbery, one count of attempted interference with commerce by

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
robbery (in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a)), and three counts of use of a firearm

during and in relation to a crime of violence (in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)).

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

                                          I.

      Braddock raises three arguments on appeal: (1) the district court erred when

it failed to exclude privileged communications between Braddock and his

purported wife, Aricka Gray; (2) the district court erred in ruling on several

evidentiary objections; and (3) cumulative error warrants reversal. We review the

district court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. United States v. Lloyd,

807 F.3d 1128, 1151 (9th Cir. 2015).

                                          II.

      First, assuming without deciding the communications between Braddock and

Aricka Gray were privileged, we conclude that any error in temporarily admitting

the text messages was harmless because the district court ultimately excluded the

communications on relevance grounds. See United States v. Lehman, 792 F.2d

899, 901 (9th Cir. 1986) (stating that we may affirm the district court “on any

ground supported by the record”). The two offending exhibits were withdrawn,

and the jurors were instructed to disregard excluded evidence and consider only

those exhibits received into evidence. See United States v. Reyes, 660 F.3d 454,

468 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Jurors are presumed to follow the court’s instructions.”).

                                          2
                                          III.

      Second, Braddock argues that the district court erred in ruling on evidentiary

objections. “Evidentiary rulings will be reversed for abuse of discretion only if

such nonconstitutional error more likely than not affected the verdict.” United

States v. Tran, 568 F.3d 1156, 1162 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal citation omitted).

“Trial judges have wide discretion in determining whether evidence is relevant.”

United States v. Alvarez, 358 F.3d 1194, 1205 (9th Cir. 2004) (internal citation and

quotation marks omitted).

      Over Braddock’s bolstering and relevance objections, the district court

permitted testimony by Braddock’s co-conspirator, Porter, that Porter had enlisted

in the Army and been previously robbed by a former boyfriend of Gray. Given the

extensive evidence of guilt, we are satisfied that this testimony did not

meaningfully affect the jury’s verdict.

      Next, we determine that the district court did not err when it allowed

Detective Condratovitch to testify that the Gamestop manager gave him a list of

gaming systems that had been stolen. The Detective testified he was given a list as

part of the investigation. Even if the testimony was offered to prove the quantity

of gaming systems stolen, this error was harmless because both the store clerk and

Porter had already testified that Braddock had stolen multiple game systems from

the store. Likewise, allowing Detective Condratovich’s testimony regarding

                                           3
Gray’s Jeep SUV was harmless because Porter had previously testified that Porter

used Gray’s “charcoal, gray-ish” Jeep in the robberies. We are not persuaded that

this cumulative testimony “more likely than not” affected the jury’s finding of

guilt. Tran, 568 F.3d at 1162 (internal citation omitted).

      Braddock also argues that the district court wrongly sustained two of the

government’s objections during Braddock’s cross-examination of Detective

Condratovich.

      First, Braddock contends that the district court improperly prevented

Detective Condratovich from “answering fully on cross-examination” about his

failure to obtain surveillance footage which may have corroborated or rebutted

Porter’s allegations against Braddock.

      A challenge to a trial court’s restriction on the scope of cross-examination

within a given area is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See United States v.

Larson, 495 F.3d 1094, 1101 (9th Cir. 2007). We look at the following criteria

when considering whether restrictions on cross-examination violate the

Confrontation Clause: “(1) whether the excluded evidence was relevant; (2)

whether there were other legitimate interests outweighing the defendant’s interest

in presenting the evidence; and (3) whether the exclusion of evidence left the jury

with sufficient information to assess the witness’s credibility.” United States v.

Mikhel, 889 F.3d 1003, 1048 (9th Cir. 2018).

                                          4
      Applying those criteria here, we conclude the district court imposed

reasonable limits on a prolonged line of cross-examination seeking speculative

evidence that was “only marginally relevant.” Larson, 495 F.3d at 1101.

      Second, Braddock argues the district court erred when it sustained the

government’s objection to Braddock’s question about what Detective

Condratovich would have done had Braddock’s name surfaced in pawn shop

records. We conclude that the district court did not err in limiting a purely

speculative line of questioning. See United States v. Vera, 770 F.3d 1232, 1242

(9th Cir. 2014) (“[A]n officer may not testify based on speculation, rely on hearsay

or interpret unambiguous, clear statements.”).

                                         IV.

      Finally, Braddock argues that the district court’s numerous purported errors

warrant reversal for cumulative error. But any errors the district court might have

committed were few and inconsequential. There was no cumulative error

warranting reversal here.

                                            V.

      The government acknowledges that one of Braddock’s convictions for use of

a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence (in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 924(c)) should be vacated following the Supreme Court’s decision in United

States v. Taylor, 142 S. Ct. 2015 (2022).

                                            5
      We agree that Braddock’s conviction on Count Three improperly rests on a

conviction which can no longer serve as a predicate offense. See Taylor, 142 S. Ct.

at 2020 (“Whatever one might say about completed Hobbs Act robbery, attempted

Hobbs Act robbery does not satisfy the elements clause.”). We vacate that portion

of the judgment and remand to the district court for resentencing consistent with

Taylor.

      AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED.

                                         6