Court Opinion

ID: 9498242
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 17:11:54.685161+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:58:42.273123
License: Public Domain

BRIGHT, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in affirming Rashad Landers’ conviction for drug distribution within 1,000 feet of a school and rejecting Lan-*965ders’ sixth amendment claim. I dissent from the majority’s opinion affirming Lan-ders’ conviction and mandatory minimum life sentence for aiding and abetting Natasha Jones and Dejuan Payne in, as the indictment reads, “knowingly and intentionally distribut[ing] and possessing] with the intent to distribute more than fifty (50) grams of a mixture and substance containing cocaine base, a/k/a crack cocaine.”
The majority misconstrues the law on aiding and abetting by stating and analyzing the wrong question. In beginning the analysis on this issue, the majority states, “The question Landers focuses on in his briefing is whether a reasonable jury could have found that Jones and Payne aided and abetted him in the distribution of crack cocaine.” Op. at 963. This is not the question Landers presented on appeal, nor is this the correct question in analyzing a conviction for aiding and abetting another in distributing or possessing with the intent to distribute crack cocaine.
The question Landers raises, and the proper question for this appeal, is: whether a reasonable jury could have found that Landers aided and abetted Jones and Payne in the distribution or possession with the intent to distribute crack cocaine. It very well may be that Jones and Payne aided and abetted Landers. That is not the issue in this case. This issue is whether Landers aided and abetted Jones or Payne.
Section 5.01 of the Eighth Circuit Model Criminal Jury Instructions describes what is needed to convict a defendant of aiding and abetting in the commission of a crime, and provides: “[f]or you to find the defendant guilty of [the principal offense] by reason of aiding and abetting, the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that all of the essential elements of [the principal offense] were committed by some person or persons and that the defendant aided and abetted the commission of that crime.” The “Notes on Use” to section 5.01 states that “a person cannot aid and abet himself in the commission of a crime.”
For this court to uphold Landers’ conviction of aiding and abetting Jones or Payne, the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, must show: (1) Jones or Payne committed the principal offense — distributing or possessing with the intent to distribute crack, and (2) Landers aided or abetted Jones or Payne in committing that principal offense. If the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, does not show the above two items, then no reasonable jury could have found Landers guilty, and this court must reverse Landers’ conviction. United States v. Ramirez, 350 F.3d 780, 783 (8th Cir.2003).
With regard to Jones, the facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, show: the house was leased to Jones, Lan-ders used a cell phone that was registered to Jones, and Landers drove vehicles that were registered to Jones. Theodis Cog-shell, who conducted the controlled buys of crack from Landers, testified that Landers gave him a phone number answered by a female, who Cogshell assumed was Jones. .The female instructed Cogshell to call Landers at a different number. Cogshell also testified that Jones “was leaving” at the times he would go to the house.
In addition to the above facts, the DEA agent on this case, John Vannatta, testified that he did not observe Jones taking part in any drug transactions and noted that Jones had a legitimate, full time job. Van-natta also testified that “I did not see her taking part in hand-to-hand transactions.” Vannatta, who had conducted surveillance on the house, also testified that he did not observe any “traffic” (which is an indica*966tion of drug transactions occurring) at the residence when Landers was not present. Cogshell testified that he personally dealt with Landers each time he bought crack and he never bought crack from Jones.
These facts, even when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, do not show that Jones distributed crack or possessed crack with the intent to distribute. The evidence, therefore, is insufficient to affirm Landers’ conviction that he aided and abetted Jones in distributing crack or possessing crack with the intent to distribute it.
In analyzing the wrong question on this appeal — whether a reasonable jury could have found that Jones and Payne aided and abetted Landers in the distribution of crack cocaine — the majority discusses United States v. LaGuardia, 774 F.2d 317 (8th Cir.1985). LaGuardia, however, sheds no light on the actual question we are faced with, because it presents a completely different situation than what we have.
In LaGuardia, Ramon Jorge LaGuardia and Marina Hidalgo Gato, LaGuardia’s girlfriend, were both convicted of possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute. and aiding and abetting in the possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute. LaGuardia, 774 F.2d at 318. The difference between this case and LaGuardia is that LaGuardia and Gato were convicted of aiding and abetting each other and convicted of the principal offense — possessing cocaine with the intent to distribute. This court properly affirmed LaGuardia’s conviction for aiding and abetting Gato, because Gato was convicted of committing the principal offense. Here, Jones may have aided and abetted Landers, because Landers committed the principal offense— distribution or possession with the intent to distribute crack cocaine. The evidence does not show, however, that Jones committed the principal offense. Landers, therefore, could not have aided and abetted Jones.
With regard to Payne, the facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, show: Payne was present when the agents performed the “knock and talk” and allowed agents to look around the residence. Vannatta testified that Payne had answered the phone and gave the phone to Landers. Cogshell testified that Payne would normally answer the phone and would then give the phone to Landers. Cogshell testified that Payne opened the door to the house when Cogshell arrived to purchase crack during the controlled buy. Cogshell noted that in the past Payne had sat at the table where the transaction took place, because Landers and Payne had been playing “a domino game or something.” Cogshell stated that Landers later moved the transactions to a back room and no one else, besides Cogshell and Landers, would go to the back room while the transactions took place.
In addition to the above facts, Cogshell testified that he personally dealt with Lan-ders each time he bought crack and he never bought crack from Payne. Cogshell testified that Payne’s involvement in Cog-shell’s dealings with Landers extended to Payne “just happened] to be there [at the house], open the door, answer the phone. Pretty basically, you know, that’s what he did.” Vannatta, who had conducted surveillance on the house, also testified that he did not observe any “traffic” at the residence when Landers was not present.
■These facts do not show that Payne distributed crack or possessed crack with the intent to distribute. The evidence, therefore, is insufficient to sustain Lan-ders’conviction that he aided and abetted Payne in distributing crack or possessing crack with the intent to distribute it.
*967There was no evidence presented that demonstrates that Jones or Payne distributed crack or possessed crack with the intent to distribute it. Landers, therefore, could not have aided or abetted Jones or Payne and his conviction on this charge must be reversed.
Landers is currently twenty-eight years old (born on July 7, 1977). If his conviction for aiding and abetting is overturned, Landers faces a sentence of thirty years to life imprisonment. Landers may receive the same sentence (of life imprisonment), but it is quite possible that the district court will sentence Landers to thirty years (or less now that the guidelines are advisory), and Landers could be released from prison when he is around fifty-five years old (in 2033).
A thirty-year sentence for these crimes is bad enough. To put a twenty-eight-year-old man in prison for life, without the possibility of parole, for a conviction that is not legally supportable is outrageous and unjustified.