U.S.A v. Robinson

Decision Date18 August 2010
Docket NumberNo. 09-3451.,09-3451.
Citation617 F.3d 984
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Appellee,v.Donald ROBINSON, Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Daniel L. Viets, argued, Columbia, MO, for Appellant.

Cristian M. Stevens, AUSA, argued, St. Louis, MO, for Appellee.

Before MURPHY, BEAM, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

BEAM, Circuit Judge.

After a bench trial, the district court 1 convicted defendant Donald Robinson of six drug-related counts, and sentenced him to 423-months' imprisonment. Robinson now raises four issues on appeal, and we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

Robinson's objections arise out of two separate searches of his rural Missouri home in 2007. First, on January 23, 2007, state law enforcement officers, acting under a valid search warrant, raided Robinson's residence and workshop. In the workshop, officers found pills used to manufacture methamphetamine, a glass bong, a glass pipe used for smoking methamphetamine, digital scales, plastic bags and twist ties, marijuana, $250 in cash, a crystalline substance (Exhibit 3-D), and a liquid substance in a Coca-Cola bottle (Exhibit 10-B). In close proximity to these items, officers found a loaded .22 caliber revolver, a loaded .22 caliber rifle, a loaded .12 gauge shotgun, two .30 caliber magazines, night vision binoculars, an operational security monitor, and three surveillance cameras. Officers also searched Robinson's master bedroom wherein they found a glass smoking device, a .30-06 rifle, a .30-06 magazine, .30-06 ammunition, and six unloaded firearms. Officers field-tested the crystalline substance, which tested positive for methamphetamine, drained the liquid contents of the Coca-Cola bottle into six laboratory bottles, and sent all of the samples to the lab for analysis.

On June 27, 2007, federal and state law enforcement officers executed a second search of Robinson's residence pursuant to a valid search warrant. In the master bedroom, officers discovered a safe containing digital scales, a substance resembling methamphetamine (Exhibit 24-B), a bag containing what appeared to be methamphetamine (Exhibit 24-E), pseudoephedrine pills, $250 in cash and two handwritten “buy lists.” Officers also found a loaded .22 caliber revolver on top of a dresser approximately six-feet from the safe, and a rifle in a gun cabinet. On the kitchen counter officers found and seized another revolver and a plastic bag containing a substance resembling methamphetamine (Exhibit 32). Exhibits 24-B, 24-E and 32 were sent to the lab for testing.

The federal grand jury returned a six-count indictment against Robinson. Based on the January raid, Robinson was charged with maintaining a drug-involved premises (Count I), possession with intent to distribute more than fifty grams of methamphetamine (Count II) and possession of at least one firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime (Count III). Based on the June raid, Robinson was charged with maintaining a drug-involved premises (Count IV), possession with the intent to distribute more than five grams of methamphetamine (Count V) and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime (Count VI).

At trial, the government called two forensic chemists to testify as to the nature of the various seized substances. First, the government called Patricia Dougherty to testify as to the nature and contents of the substances seized during the January raid. Over defense counsel's chain-of-custody objection, Dougherty testified that she personally tested Exhibits 3-D and 10-B and that both contained methamphetamine. Second, the government called Sean Brooks to testify about the nature of the substances seized during the June raid. Brooks had not tested the substances himself but worked in the same lab as Adam Benne, the chemist who performed the testing. Prior to trial, Robinson's counsel stipulated that Brooks could testify on Benne's behalf. Based on Benne's lab notes and reports, Brooks testified that Benne had used proper methods and procedures to conclude that Exhibits 24-B, 24-E and 32 all contained methamphetamine. Robinson's counsel noted on the record that he thought he “stipulated to [Brooks's testimony] by mistake, but that's fine.” Robinson made no objection to Brooks's testimony.

The government also called Robinson's wife, Virginia, to testify at trial. She testified that Robinson had exclusive access to the workshop and the safe in the master bedroom. She also explained that Robinson was involved in cooking, selling, and using methamphetamine, particularly in the workshop. Finally, Virginia testified that Robinson used the firearms for hunting, target practice, and to protect the premises, but that she had never seen Robinson carry a weapon while dealing methamphetamine.

After a two-day bench trial, the district court convicted Robinson on all six counts. At sentencing, the court sentenced Robinson to concurrent 63-month sentences on Counts I, II, IV and V; a mandatory consecutive 60-month sentence on Count III (first firearm in furtherance violation); and a mandatory consecutive 300-month sentence on Count VI (second firearm in furtherance violation) for a total of 423-months' imprisonment. On appeal Robinson argues (1) there was insufficient evidence to support his June-based firearm-in-furtherance charge (Count VI), (2) the district court violated his Sixth Amendment confrontation rights in allowing Brooks to testify on Benne's behalf, (3) a proper chain of custody was not established as to Exhibits 10-B and 3-D and (4) his 300-month sentence under Count VI constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.

II. DISCUSSIONA. Sufficiency of the Evidence on Count VI

Robinson first challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his June-based conviction for possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). We review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence de novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the verdict.” United States v. Rastegar, 472 F.3d 1032, 1035 (8th Cir.2007). And [w]e will reverse only if no reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id.

“To establish that a defendant possessed a firearm in violation of § 924(c), the Government must prove that (1) he committed a drug trafficking crime, and (2) he possessed a firearm in furtherance of that crime.’ United States v. Garcia-Hernandez, 530 F.3d 657, 662 (8th Cir.2008) (quoting United States v. Rolon-Ramos, 502 F.3d 750, 757 (8th Cir.2007)). Robinson maintains that there was insufficient evidence to prove that he possessed a firearm “in furtherance” of the June-based drug trafficking crimes-maintenance of a drug premises (Count IV) and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine (Count V). We disagree.

To satisfy the “in furtherance of” element of § 924(c), “the government must present evidence from which a reasonable [trier of fact] could find a ‘nexus' between the defendant's possession of the charged firearm and the drug crime, such that this possession had the effect of ‘furthering, advancing or helping forward’ the drug crime.' ” United States v. Sanchez-Garcia, 461 F.3d 939, 946 (8th Cir.2006) (quoting United States v. Hamilton, 332 F.3d 1144, 1149-50 (8th Cir.2003)). Thus [a] defendant's simultaneous possession of drugs and a firearm, standing alone, is insufficient to sustain a conviction.” United States v. Hilliard, 490 F.3d 635, 640 (8th Cir.2007). Indeed, there must be evidence that “the defendant's possession of the firearm facilitated the drug crime, through evidence that the firearm was used for protection, was kept near the drugs, or was in close proximity to the defendant during drug transactions.” Id. (quotation omitted).

Robinson maintains that such evidence is lacking. In particular, Robinson emphasizes the fact that Virginia testified that Robinson used the guns for hunting, target practice, and that she had never seen Robinson carry a weapon while dealing methamphetamine. Though this testimony is certainly relevant to our inquiry, we do not believe it forecloses a conclusion that Robinson used the guns for drug purposes as well. Indeed, Virginia also testified that Robinson used the guns to protect the premises. Since one of Robinson's convictions was for maintenance of a drug premises (Count IV), Virginia's testimony as to Robinson's use of the guns supports his § 924(c) conviction. And, contrary to Robinson's contention, the government also presented evidence from which the trier of fact could independently conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Robinson used the guns seized in June in furtherance of the indicted drug trafficking crimes. Specifically, the government presented evidence that the firearms were located near (1) the seized methamphetamine, (2) drug trafficking/manufacturing paraphernalia and (3) $250 in cash. Additionally, the government offered the testimony of Detective Sergeant Grellner, an expert in the manufacture, distribution and use of methamphetamine, as well as the use of firearms in connection with methamphetamine related crimes.2 Sergeant Grellner testified that in his expert opinion, persons involved with methamphetamine are often paranoid about police raids and about their associates informing on or stealing from them. According to Sergeant Grellner, such paranoia leads to the conclusion that firearms are “tools of the trade for meth dealers,” and the similar conclusion that Robinson possessed the guns seized in the June raid for protecting his methamphetamine distribution.

Here, the loaded .22 revolver's proximity-within six feet-to saleable quantities of methamphetamine, digital scales, and pills used to manufacture methamphetamine coupled with Sergeant Grellner's expert testimony regarding the use of firearms in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
45 cases
  • Patsalis v. Attorney Gen. of Ariz.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Arizona
    • August 18, 2020
    ...circuit has held that consecutive sentences under § 924(c) violate the Eighth Amendment." United States v. Robinson , 617 F.3d 984, 991 (8th Cir. 2010) (alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Wiest , 596 F.3d 906, 912 (8th Cir. 2010) ). For example, courts have upheld against Eig......
  • People v. Buie
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • May 24, 2012
    ...does] not object to the stipulation in court,’ we presume that he has acquiesced in his counsel's stipulation.” United States v. Robinson, 617 F.3d 984, 989–990 (C.A.8, 2010), citing United States v. Lee, 374 F.3d 637, 650 (C.A.8, 2004). Further, Murray itself underscored the practical conc......
  • United States v. Rivera-Ruperto
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • January 13, 2017
    ...)). Accordingly, "[n]o circuit has held that consecutive sentences under § 924(c) violate the Eighth Amendment." United States v. Robinson , 617 F.3d 984, 991 (8th Cir. 2010) (alteration in original) (quoting United State s v. Wiest , 596 F.3d 906, 912 (8th Cir. 2010) ). For example, courts......
  • Honken v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • October 4, 2013
    ...that a report admitted into evidence pursuant to a stipulation raises no Confrontation Clause issue); United States v. Robinson, 617 F.3d 984, 989–90 (8th Cir.2010) (holding that a defendant's acquiescence in his counsel's stipulation can be presumed if such defendant does not make his obje......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Trials
    • United States
    • Georgetown Law Journal No. 110-Annual Review, August 2022
    • August 1, 2022
    ...right waived where off‌icer’s testimony on conversation with informant was admitted without an objection from defense); U.S. v. Robinson, 617 F.3d 984, 989-90 (8th Cir. 2010) (confrontation right waived because defendant failed to object when defense counsel stipulated to admission of testi......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT