U.S. v. Couch
| Citation | 67 F.3d 300 |
| Decision Date | 03 October 1995 |
| Docket Number | 94-6020,Nos. 94-6019,s. 94-6019 |
| Parties | NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John COUCH (94-6019) and Marvin Collins (94-6020, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit) |
Before: MILBURN and NELSON, Circuit Judges and MORTON. *
In these consolidated appeals, defendant John Couch (Case No. 94-6019) appeals his convictions for two counts of armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2113(a), (d) and 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2; two related counts of using of a firearm during a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924(c); and one count of bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2113(a) and 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2. Defendant Marvin Collins (Case No. 94-6020) appeals his sentence following his conviction for one count of armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2113(a), (d) and 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2; and one related count of using a firearm during a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924(c). On appeal, the issues are (1) whether the district court erred in determining that defendant Couch's confessions were voluntary, (2) whether the government presented sufficient evidence at defendant Couch's trial to establish that the victim banks were insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC") at the times of the robberies, and (3) whether the district court erred in imposing a sentence on defendant Collins at the high end of the sentencing range established by the United States Sentencing Guidelines with regard to count one of the indictment. For the reasons that follow, we affirm in both cases.
This case involves three armed bank robberies carried out by defendants John Couch and Marvin Collins, along with various accomplices, on October 16, October 23, and November 12, 1992, in Memphis, Tennessee.
On the afternoon of October 16, 1992, defendants Couch and Collins robbed the National Bank of Commerce on Elvis Presley Boulevard in Memphis. Defendant Couch used a .38 caliber pistol in the robbery, and defendant Collins used a sawed-off shotgun. Both defendants escaped from this robbery in a getaway car that they had parked nearby.
On October 23, 1992, defendants Couch and Collins robbed the First American Bank at 4632 Millbranch in Memphis. They were assisted in this robbery by Ronald "Poochie" Collins and 16-year-old Bobby Nelson. A few hours before their second robbery, Bobby Nelson stole a car for the group to use as their getaway car. Defendant Couch and Ronald Collins then drove the stolen car to the bank to commit the robbery while defendant Collins and Bobby Nelson waited nearby in another car for the getaway. Both Defendant Couch and Ronald Collins carried .38 caliber pistols into the bank on this robbery. After robbing the bank, defendant Couch and Ronald Collins drove the stolen car to the location where defendant Collins and Bobby Nelson were waiting in the other car. Defendants Couch and Ronald Collins abandoned the stolen car, and they all escaped in the other car. Over $20,000 was taken during this robbery.
On the morning of November 12, 1992, defendants Couch and Collins robbed the Tri-State Bank at 2440 Elvis Presley Boulevard in Memphis. This time defendants Couch and Collins were assisted by Bobby Nelson and Patrick Couch, defendant Couch's brother. Bobby Nelson once again stole a car, a blue Trans Am, for the group to use in the robbery. The plan on this robbery was for defendant Collins and Patrick Couch to drive the stolen car to the bank and to commit the robbery while defendant Couch and Bobby Nelson waited nearby in a clean getaway car.
Defendant Collins and Patrick Couch entered the Tri-State Bank carrying pistols and committed the robbery. When they fled from the bank in the stolen car, however, they missed their connection with defendant Couch and Bobby Nelson. Defendant Couch and Bobby Nelson had been stopped by the police a short distance from the bank after bystanders told police officers that defendant Couch and Bobby Nelson had been cruising the area asking people if they had seen a blue Trans Am. Defendant Collins and Patrick Couch escaped from the vicinity after abandoning the stolen blue Trans Am.
After being stopped in the vicinity of the Tri-State Bank on November 12, 1992, defendant Couch was interviewed by Sergeant Herbert Adair of the Memphis Police Department. Initially, Sergeant Adair considered defendant Couch to be a witness rather than a suspect. Defendant Couch told Sergeant Adair that defendant Collins was responsible for the Tri-State Bank robbery and that he had used a blue Trans Am as his getaway car. Defendant Couch did not admit his own involvement in the robbery, and he was not arrested at that time. Defendant Couch was asked to report back to the police station for a further interview on the next day, November 13, 1992. At the second interview, defendant Couch told officers that his brother, Patrick Couch, had also been involved in the Tri-State robbery, but he again denied any involvement himself. After the officers took defendant Couch's statement, he was again released.
The police continued their investigation of all three bank robberies subsequent to these initial interviews of defendant Couch. After further investigation, Patrick Couch was arrested on November 13, 1992. Defendant Collins and Bobby Nelson were arrested on November 17, 1992, and both gave the police statements about who was involved in the robberies. Finally, on November 23, 1992, defendant Couch was arrested. After the arrest, officers advised defendant Couch of his Miranda rights. Defendant Couch then told officers that he wanted to talk about the robberies and his involvement in them but not at that particular time.
On the day following his arrest, November 24, 1992, defendant Couch was advised of his Miranda rights again, and he signed a waiver of rights form. He then gave detailed statements admitting his involvement in the robberies of Tri-State Bank, First American Bank, and National Bank of Commerce. These confessions were recorded by a typist and were signed by defendant Couch.
On May 25, 1993, a federal grand jury returned a nine-count superseding indictment naming defendant John Couch in five counts and naming defendant Marvin Collins in five counts. Patrick Couch and Ronald Collins were also named in the indictment, but they are not involved in these appeals. Count one charged defendants Couch and Collins with armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2113(a), (d) and 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2, for the November 12, 1992 bank robbery. Count two charged defendant Collins with carrying and using a firearm during the November 12, 1992 bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924(c). Defendants Couch and Collins were not charged in count three. Count four charged defendants Couch and Collins with armed bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2113(a), (d) and 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2, for the October 23, 1992 bank robbery. Count five charged defendant Couch with carrying and using a firearm during the October 23, 1992 bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924(c). Defendants Couch and Collins were not charged in count six. Count seven charged defendants Couch and Collins with armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2113(a), (d) and 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2, for the October 16, 1992 bank robbery. Count eight charged defendant Collins with carrying and using a firearm during the October 16, 1992 bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924(c). Count nine charged defendant Couch with carrying and using a firearm during the October 16, 1992 bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924(c).
On October 27, 1993, defendant Couch filed a motion to suppress statements he made to police on November 12, 13, and 24, 1992, regarding the three bank robberies. On November 5, 1993, the district court conducted a hearing on defendant Couch's motion. Defendant Couch claims that he was told by the interviewing officers that if he signed the admission statements he would be prosecuted in state court rather than federal court, which would have resulted in a lesser sentence upon conviction. Defendant Couch did not have counsel present during any of his interviews. Sergeant Adair testified that the interviewing officers did not make any promises to defendant Couch during the November 24, 1992 interview. He also stated that the officers did not discuss with defendant Couch the length of any possible sentence or whether he would be prosecuted in state court or federal court.
The district court denied defendant Couch's motion stating:
The Court from this record cannot find that there was any promise made that was such an inducement that it overbore Mr. Couch's will. The Court just cannot find Mr Couch's testimony creditable about the promise he was made.
Suppression Hearing Transcript at 59 (quoted in Brief of Appellee at 10). Thereafter, on November 29, 1993, the district court filed a written order denying the motion. The order recited the following factual findings:
The record does not reveal any coercive activity on the part of officers. In fact, Couch's testimony concerning the difference in federal and state time is not credible. At most, the proof establishes a general discussion about Couch's knowledge that cooperation would assist him in his criminal prosecution. The law enforcement officers did not make any promises to John Couch that overcame his will. Couch's statements were freely and voluntarily given.
The trials of the defendants were severed. Defendant Couch was tried before a jury on January 10, 11, and 12, 1994. The government presented, among other evidence, defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial