United States v. Bonner

• Decision Date: 01 May 2012
• Docket Number: No. 11-1050,11-1050
• Parties: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. CHANCE D. BONNER, Appellant
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.CHANCE D. BONNER, Appellant

No. 11-1050

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

Filed: May 1, 2012

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. No. 1-09-cr-00072-002)

District Judge: Honorable Christopher C. Conner

Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

April 16, 2012

Before: VANASKIE, ALDISERT and BARRY, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

ALDISERT, Circuit Judge.

This appeal from the judgment of the District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania stems from a string of drug robberies, home invasions and carjackings. After a jury convicted Appellant Chance Bonner of nine counts arising from these crimes, the District Court sentenced him to 976 months' imprisonment.

Bonner raises 13 arguments for our disposition on appeal,¹ which fall into four categories: Bonner challenges (1) the District Court's rulings on his motions to suppress inculpatory statements; (2) the sufficiency of the evidence leading to his conviction; (3) the District Court's admission of certain pieces of evidence; and (4) the length of his sentence. Before we address the multitudinous issues raised by Appellant, we note that, in general, "[a]ppellate advocacy is measured by effectiveness, not loquaciousness." Ruggero J. Aldisert, The Appellate Bar: Professional Competence and Professional Responsibility—A View from the Jaundiced Eye of One Appellate Judge, 11 Cap. U. L. Rev. 445, 458 (1982). Effective advocacy in this Court is predicated on a modicum of issues, thus permitting a discussion in depth of the reasons justifying our decision. A party's choice to raise over a dozen issues in one case at best interferes inordinately with the court's calendaring process; and at worst, requires the composition of an opinion on a hodgepodge of helter skelter contentions. More importantly, "[l]egal contentions, like the currency, depreciate through overissue. . . . [E]xperience on the bench convinces [us] that multiplying assignments of error will dilute and weaken a good case and will not save a bad one." Robert H, Jackson, Advocacy Before the Supreme Court, 37 Cornell L.Q. 1, 5 (1951). This case is no exception. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm the District Court's judgment.

I.

Because we write primarily for the parties, who are familiar with the facts and the proceedings in the District Court, we will revisit them only briefly.

On March 22, 2008, Miqual Hodge² bumped into Chance Bonner³ while walking past Jennifer Bass's house in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. Bonner, who was Bass's boyfriend and the father of her children, invited Hodge to go for a ride in Bass's minivan. During this trip, Hodge sold Bonner a stolen handgun. After some aimless driving and drug use, the group drove to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, to pick up a friend, Donald Scott.

Scott got into the van carrying a handgun and a ski mask. As they returned to Carlisle, the group discussed who they might rob and settled on a person known as "Mikail." They subsequently parked in front of what they thought to be "Mikail's" home in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. They were mistaken: "Mikail" did not live there; Eric Clarke and his family did. As Clarke walked to his mailbox, Bonner and Scott drew their guns and confronted Clarke. Among other things, the pair demanded drugs from Clarke. App. 00333. When Clarke replied that he had neither money nor drugs, Bonner and Scott told Clarke that they "kn[e]w" he had drugs and searched his jacket to no avail. Id. Growing desperate, Bonner thrust his gun under Clarke's nose and told him to sniff the gunpowder left from an earlier (fictitious) shooting. They ordered Clarke to get money and drugs from his house, threatening to kill Clarke's child if he lied. When Clarke again said that he had nothing, Bonner and Scott told him that they would put him in the trunk of their car until he directed them to a house that did have money or drugs. Before they could puttheir plan into action, however, a car drove by. Clarke ran to that passing car and called the police. Bonner and Scott retreated to the minivan, where Hodge and Bass waited.

The group then left Clarke's neighborhood and drove to Newville, Pennsylvania. Bonner suggested they visit Quinton Stackfield to collect a $400 debt owed to Bonner's brother for stereo equipment. They parked near Stackfield's apartment, in which he lived with his pregnant fiancee, Renee Barnes, and waited for the couple to return home. When Stackfield and Barnes arrived, Bonner and Scott approached the couple while Bass and Hodge stayed behind. They forced their victims into the apartment, tied Stackfield's arms and legs, and demanded money and drugs. Stackfield insisted he had no money and did not sell drugs, but did occasionally smoke marijuana. Bonner and Scott then took about one gram of marijuana and other items from Stackfield. At gunpoint, the intruders then forced Stackfield to call a friend who had "any amount" of drugs to arrange a meet-up. App. 00375-00376. Stackfield chose Warren Bennett, a friend from school. Bonner and Scott then forced both victims to drive them to Bennett's home nearby.

Scott's pistol greeted Bennett when he opened his apartment door. After bringing Stackfield and Barnes into Bennett's apartment and restraining all three, Bonner and Scott repeated their demands for money or drugs. They beat Bennett with a pistol and threatened to shoot him if he proved uncooperative. Bennett eventually relinquished one and one-half pounds of marijuana and over $3,500 he made from selling marijuana. After unsuccessfully attempting to get Bennett to divulge his marijuana supplier, Bonner and Scott left with Bennett's drugs, cash, mobile telephones, and identification cards in tow.

Two weeks later, on April 8, 2008, a cocaine trafficker named Lori Miller invited Bonner and Scott to join her and another man in robbing Miller's cocaine supplier, Michael Pearson, in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania. The group concocted a scheme inwhich Bonner and Scott would "break in" to Miller's home after Pearson showed up for what he thought would be the routine payment of a drug debt. The ploy worked. Upon Pearson's arrival, the "robbers" held Pearson and Miller at gunpoint. They pistol whipped Pearson and pretended to assault Miller. Again demanding money and drugs, they took several hundred dollars of Pearson's drug proceeds.

The group then forced their captives—real and pretend—into Pearson's car and made Miller drive. After beating Pearson to comply, he directed the group to his home, where he lived with his wife, Ruth Miller,⁴ and their four children. Once there, repeating a mantra to one another that they "got to do this right," the assailants restrained Pearson in his garage. App. 00551. They, likewise, bound Ruth Miller, Lori Miller, and Pearson's cousin. The intruders threatened to kill Pearson's children unless he divulged where his cocaine and money were hidden. When Pearson hesitated, one of Bonner's coconspirators stabbed Pearson in the neck with a screwdriver. Pearson collapsed into a pool of his own blood and faded in and out of consciousness for the next hour. Scott then turned his attention and his pistol to Pearson's wife, forcing Ruth Miller to undress. While his comrades watched, Scott sexually assaulted her.

Afterward, Scott reapplied Ruth's restraints and left her in the garage while the group rummaged through Pearson's home. They absconded with jewelry, televisions, computers, clothes, cellular telephones, identification cards, $1,800 in cash, and either "a couple pieces" or a "fifty-cent piece" of crack cocaine. App. 00517, 00554-00555. After the intruders left, Pearson broke free of his restraints, unbound Ruth Miller, and freed his cousin before again collapsing from his blood loss. Medical technicians later airlifted Pearson to a hospital for treatment, where he recovered from his wounds.

After his arrest and several rounds of police interrogations, discussed in detail below, a grand jury charged Bonner and four codefendants in a 15-Count indictment. Bonner's case was severed from his codefendants' before his trial, at which a jury convicted Bonner of the following:

Count 1: Conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371.

Count 6: Hobbs Act robbery of Clarke, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951.

Count 7: Possession, use or carrying of a firearm during a crime of violence (robbery of Clarke), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A).

Count 8: Hobbs Act robbery of Stackfield, Barnes and Bennett, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951.

Count 9: Carjacking of Stackfield and Barnes, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2119.

Count 10: Possession, use or carrying of a firearm during a crime of violence (robbery and carjacking of Stackfield, Barnes and Bennett), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A).

Count 12: Hobbs Act robbery of Pearson and Miller, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951.

Count 13: Carjacking of Pearson, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2119.

Count 14: Possession, use or carrying of a firearm during a crime of violence (robbery and carjacking of Pearson and Miller), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A).

After weighing all of the Sentencing Guidelines § 3553 factors, the District Court imposed sentences amounting to 976 months of imprisonment, to be served after the completion of Bonner's state-imposed terms of incarceration.⁵ Bonner timely appealed.

II.

The District Court had jurisdiction because the defendant was charged with offenses against the United States. 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We have jurisdiction over its final judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a).

III.

We address Bonner's contentions in the following order. First, Bonner challenges the District Court's failure to suppress four sets of statements Bonner made to officers before trial. We disagree and will not disturb the District Court's denials of Bonner's suppression motions. Second, Bonner contends...