U.S. v. Hendricks
| Decision Date | 11 April 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. 15-2525-cr,August Term 2018,15-2525-cr |
| Citation | 921 F.3d 320 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Robert HENDRICKS, Defendant-Appellant, Shakeal Hendricks, Taiquan Howard, aka Taiquan Hendricks, Charles E. Robinson, Jr., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
RAJIT S. DOSANJH, Assistant United States Attorney, for Grant C. Jaquith, United States Attorney for the Northern District of New York, Syracuse, NY, for Appellee.
STEVEN Y. YUROWITZ, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Cabranes, Pooler, and Droney, Circuit Judges.
Defendant-Appellant Robert Hendricks ("Robert") appeals from an August 4, 2015 judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Norman A. Mordue, Judge ) convicting him, following a jury trial, of (1) credit union robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a), 2; and (2) using a firearm during a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(ii), 2. The District Court sentenced Robert principally to 360 months' incarceration to be followed by 5 years of supervised release. On appeal, Robert challenges the validity of his conviction for using a firearm during a crime of violence, arguing that federal credit union robbery does not qualify as a "crime of violence" for the purposes of § 924(c). He further contends that the District Court abused its discretion and denied him a fair trial by (1) excluding a photograph of the individual Robert claims actually robbed the credit union, and (2) admitting testimony of victim witnesses regarding the robbery's impact on them in the aftermath of the crime. Finally, Robert challenges his sentence and argues that the District Court plainly erred by sentencing him as a career offender under the residual clause of the 2014 edition of United States Sentencing Guidelines § 4B1.2(a)(2).
On the morning of August 19, 2013, Robert Hendricks ("Robert"), Shakeal Hendricks ("Shakeal"), Taiquan Howard ("Taiquan"), and a fourth man drove to Camden, New York, where they intended to rob a credit union.1 Deeming the operation in Camden too risky, the four moved on to another target—the Access Federal Credit Union ("AFCU") in Rome, New York.
On reaching the AFCU at approximately 12:25 p.m., the four men parked in a nearby lot. Shakeal entered the credit union lobby first while the other three men remained in the car. Shakeal approached the two tellers on duty and requested information regarding the credit union's financial services. The tellers directed him to a customer service representative's cubicle.
Shortly thereafter, at approximately 12:30 p.m., Taiquan and Robert entered the credit union brandishing handguns. Taiquan vaulted the teller's counter and pointed his handgun at the first teller, while Robert approached the second teller, who was assisting a customer. Robert shoved the customer, grabbed him by the neck, pushed him down into a chair, and warned that he would "blow [him] away."2 At the same time, Shakeal forced the customer service representative to exit her cubicle and then left the credit union. Robert pointed a gun at the customer service representative and told her to sit on the floor.
Meanwhile, Taiquan, his gun still pointed at the first teller, asked who could open the vault. The first teller responded that he could, so Taiquan forced him to do so. Robert then threw a backpack he was carrying to Taiquan to fill with money from the vault. While the first teller filled the backpack with cash, Robert remained in the lobby with his gun drawn, observing the other AFCU employees and its lone customer.
Once the backpack was full, Taiquan and Robert left the credit union. The four men then drove to a Dunkin' Donuts in East Syracuse, New York, before going their separate ways.
In an indictment filed on March 13, 2014, Robert, Taiquan, and Charles E. Robinson, Jr. were charged with credit union robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a), 2. Robert and Taiquan were also charged with using a firearm during a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(ii), 2. Taiquan pleaded guilty to both counts, but Robert and Charles E. Robinson, Jr. proceeded to trial. Shakeal testified as a government witness pursuant to a plea agreement.
At trial, the Government elicited testimony from, among others, the three credit union employees who were present for the robbery. The Government asked these witnesses (1) how they felt during the robbery, and (2) how the robbery impacted them in the aftermath of the crime.
With respect to the latter inquiry, the Government asked the first teller whether he was "able to return to work" after the robbery.3 He responded: 4
The Government asked the second teller the same question. She testified that she did not return to work after the robbery because she "couldn't bring [herself] to go back in that credit union."5
Finally, the Government asked the customer service representative how the "experience affect[ed her]."6 She responded: 7
Robert objected to the Government's question to the first teller and customer service representative based on irrelevance. He further objected to the testimony of the customer service representative as "potentially prejudicial" and "introduced for no purpose other than to inflame the jury."8 The District Court overruled each objection.
At trial, Robert did not testify and called no witnesses. Instead, he relied on cross-examination of the Government's witnesses to suggest that he was mistakenly identified as a participant in the robbery.
In support of his misidentification defense, Robert sought to implicate a third party, Jamar Sesum, a.k.a. "Bam" ("Bam").9 While cross-examining one of the Government's witnesses, Robert sought to admit into evidence a photograph of Bam. The Government objected, but the District Court admitted the photograph "subject to connection," requiring Robert to later demonstrate its relevance.10 At the close of trial, the Government renewed its objection, arguing that Robert had failed to show the photograph was relevant and that introducing it would confuse the jury. The District Court found Robert's contention that Bam was a third-party perpetrator "really, really, speculative" and excluded the photograph.11
After deliberating for less than five hours, the jury found Robert guilty of both credit union robbery and using a firearm during a crime of violence.12
At sentencing, the District Court found that Robert was a "career offender" under the 2014 edition of United States Sentencing Guidelines § 4B1.1 because of his prior felony convictions for burglary in the second degree, in violation of New York Penal Law § 140.25(2), and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, in violation of New York Penal Law § 220.39(1).13 As a result of Robert's status as a "career offender," his advisory Guidelines range was 360 months' to life imprisonment. On July 23, 2015, the District Court sentenced Robert to 240 months' imprisonment on the credit union robbery charge and 120 months' imprisonment on the § 924(c) charge, to run consecutively, for a total effective sentence of 360 months' imprisonment. This appeal followed.
This case presents four questions:
We review legal questions underlying a challenge to a criminal conviction de novo .14 Because Robert did not challenge the validity of his conviction under § 924(c) before the District Court, we review his conviction for plain error.15
The District Court's evidentiary rulings, in turn, are reviewed for abuse of discretion to the extent that they were objected to below.16 "To find such abuse, we must conclude that the trial judge's evidentiary rulings were arbitrary and irrational."17 A district court "has considerable discretion in deciding whether an adequate foundation has been laid for the introduction of relevant documents."18 This Court "accord[s] particular deference to the trial court's rulings as to foundation and relevance."19 Similarly, we "accord great deference" to a district court's analysis under Federal Rule of Evidence 403.20 Even where we conclude that a district court erred in admitting evidence under Rule 403, the error will nonetheless be deemed harmless if we conclude with "fair assurance that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Celaj v. United States
...minimum criminal conduct necessary for conviction under a particular statute" necessarily involves violence." " United States v. Hendricks , 921 F.3d 320, 327 (2d Cir. 2019), citing Hill .In United States v. Johnson , the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of a nearly identical ......
-
United States v. Evans
...is a crime of violence under the force clause of various sentence enhancement Guidelines and statutes."4 United States v. Hendricks , 921 F.3d 320, 328 (2d Cir. 2019) (quotation marks omitted). These decisions have rejected the same argument that Evans advances here.5 As the Fourth Circuit ......
-
United States v. Carr
...the intent to commit a felony. See 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). Only the first paragraph is at issue in this case.7 See United States v. Hendricks , 921 F.3d 320, 329 (2d Cir. 2019) ("A defendant acts ‘by intimidation’ when he knowingly engages in conduct from which an ordinary person in the teller......
-
United States v. Felder
...attempted, or threatened use of physical force" as required by § 924(c)(3)(A). Appellant Br. at 56. He is wrong.In United States v. Hendricks , 921 F.3d 320 (2d Cir. 2019), this court rejected a similar challenge to federal bank robbery, a crime that, like federal carjacking, proscribes a t......
-
Review Proceedings
...for plain error because defendant failed to raise contemporaneous objection to codefendant’s statements at trial); U.S. v. Hendricks, 921 F.3d 320, 326 (2d Cir. 2019) (claim reviewed for abuse of discretion because evidentiary objection was timely); U.S. v. Hodge, 870 F.3d 184, 203 n.14 (3d......