United States v. Sherrill

• Decision Date: 24 August 2020
• Docket Number: No. 5817,No. 19-5815, No. 5983,19-5815
• Citation: 972 F.3d 752
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christian SHERRILL; Eddie Poindexter; Willie Somerville, Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

972 F.3d 752

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.Christian SHERRILL; Eddie Poindexter; Willie Somerville, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 19-5815

No. 5817

No. 5983

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Argued: July 30, 2020

Decided and Filed: August 24, 2020

CLAY, Circuit Judge.

Defendants Christian Sherrill, Eddie Poindexter, and Willie Somerville were indicted on multiple criminal counts arising out of their attempted robbery of Timothy Edwards, during which Edwards was killed. Following a jury trial, all three were convicted of attempting to obstruct, delay, or affect commerce by robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (the "Hobbs Act") and § 2, and the knowing use or carry of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c) and 2, or aiding and abetting those crimes. Somerville was also convicted of possessing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), and causing the death of a person through the use of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(j)(1).

Defendants now appeal their convictions and sentences. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we AFFIRM the district court's decision in its entirety.

BACKGROUND

Factual Background

In the winter of 2016–2017, Defendant Somerville began planning to rob Timothy Edwards, sharing some details of that plan with Defendant Sherrill. Defendants planned to take drugs and money from Edwards, who had been selling cocaine in the area for years and frequently conducted drug deals from his home.

On January 19, 2017, Defendants set the plan in motion. Somerville and Sherrill recruited codefendant Armoni Hall to participate, who agreed when they showed up at his apartment to ask for his help. Codefendant Darrell Owens joined them. The four then picked up Defendant Poindexter in Somerville's fiancée's white Dodge Charger, bringing with them two guns—a shotgun and a nine-millimeter pistol. Along the way to Edwards' house, Somerville instructed the others on how they should commit the robbery.

When the group approached Edwards' neighborhood, Sherrill switched into the driver's seat. Sherrill then dropped off Somerville, Hall, and Poindexter at the end of Edwards' street, and he and Owens drove away, Sherrill having been instructed by Somerville to wait with the car in the parking lot of apartments nearby. Somerville, Hall, and Poindexter walked toward Edwards' home, with Somerville carrying the pistol and Hall the shotgun. After peering into a window of Edwards' home, they kicked in his door. Edwards immediately confronted them, struggling to disarm Hall. Somerville then opened fire, shooting Edwards multiple times and killing him. One of Somerville's shots also hit Hall.

The group fled toward the car. Hall collapsed along the way, and Sherrill and Owens ultimately drove away without Poindexter, Somerville, or Hall. Law enforcement later found Hall a block away, lying in the street and bleeding from a gunshot wound.

The Dodge Charger was picked up by the police at some point thereafter, and was identified by a witness who saw it in Edwards' neighborhood just before the attempted robbery. Weeks later, law enforcement also recovered a Ruger nine-millimeter pistol and a Mossberg shotgun that had been found abandoned in the neighborhood. Hall identified the pistol as the one carried by Somerville and the shotgun as the one he carried on the night of the robbery. Edwards' autopsy and law enforcement's investigation also uncovered bullets and shell casings matching the Ruger nine-millimeter pistol.

Procedural Background

In December 2017, Somerville, Sherrill, Poindexter, Hall, and Owens were each charged with three counts relating to the robbery: attempt to commit Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951 and 2 (Count 1); using or carrying a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c) and 2 (Count 2); and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c) and 2 (Count 3). They were later also charged with unlawfully and with malice aforethought causing the death of a person through the use of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(j)(1) and 2 (Count 4). Hall and Owens entered guilty pleas, and Somerville, Poindexter, and Sherrill proceeded to trial.

Prior to trial, Defendants made several motions relevant to this appeal. First, Sherrill and Somerville moved to sever their trials from those of their codefendants. They argued that the evidence brought against their codefendants would spill over into the jury's consideration of their cases and that the introduction at trial of incriminating statements provided by their codefendants would violate their rights under the Confrontation Clause, as interpreted in Bruton v. United States , 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968), if those codefendants did not testify. After Hall and Owens entered guilty pleas and were set to testify at trial, the only remaining statement in question was that of Defendant Poindexter. Somerville later requested that if the court denied his motion to sever, it instead adopt additional proposed redactions to Poindexter's statement that would "cure[ ] any direct or identifiably indirect reference to [Somerville]." (Somerville Reply Supporting Mot. to Sever, R. 122 at PageID #329.) Sherrill did not propose any further redactions.

The court denied both Defendants' motions to sever, but granted Somerville's requested redactions. Poindexter's statement, as introduced at trial, read as follows:

Someone was the person who set everything up in regards to the incident on Douglas Street regarding [Edwards], who was killed the other night. On Thursday, January 19th, 2017, ... someone called me and told me that he wanted to hit this lick and wanted to know if I wanted to go. I told him I did want to go.

A couple hours later, when it was dark, he came to pick me up. Others were already with him.... After they picked me up, they went to pick up the guns from the White Folks Projects in Covington. I am not sure exactly where he got them because he walked by several houses. When he came back, he had a long barrel shotgun and a pistol.

We then drove over to Douglas Street. We got out of the car and walked towards [Edwards'] house on Douglas Street. Someone had the pistol and someone had the shotgun. At this time, someone was driving the car. We all three walked to the carport.

Someone kicked open the door and went inside, but the man inside was trying to force him out. Someone made his way into the house, someone second, and then I heard a shot. After I heard the shot, I ran through some backyards towards the car that was backed into the apartments on ... Boals Street.

Once I returned the car, someone asked where they were. I told him that I heard some shots and I think they were coming. I then walked home to my house on Price Street.

When I made it home, my grandmother said that someone was dead. However, I later learned that he was shot and still alive.

At any time during the incident, I was not armed.

(Trial Tr., R. 280 at PageID ##2997–98.) Neither Sherrill nor Somerville renewed their motion to sever or objected to the admission of this statement at trial.

Defendant Sherrill next filed a motion in limine pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 403 to exclude evidence suggesting that he was in a gang, including photographs of him and his codefendants wearing colors and making hand signs associated with gangs. The district court denied this motion, finding the evidence could properly be admitted for the purpose of identifying the defendants and establishing their relationship with one another. The photographs were later admitted at trial with black boxes covering the relevant hand signs, although Sherrill requested the photographs instead be cropped from the shoulder level down.

After a trial in January 2019, the district court declared a mistrial when a juror absconded during deliberations. Defendants were retried in late February and early March 2019. The jury ultimately convicted Somerville on all four counts. They convicted Sherrill and Poindexter on Counts 1 and 2, acquitted Sherrill and Poindexter on Count 3, and failed to reach a unanimous verdict regarding their guilt on Count 4. The government then moved to dismiss Count 4 against Sherrill and Poindexter, and the district court granted the motion.

Prior to sentencing, the probation office prepared a Presentence Report ("PSR") for each Defendant. Somerville's PSR identified his base offense level, including relevant enhancements, as 49 for Counts 1 and 4 (attempt to commit Hobbs Act robbery and causing the death of a person through the use of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) ). Although Somerville's offense level was "more than 43," it was "treated as an offense level of 43," as the Guidelines require. U.S.S.G. Ch. 5, Pt. A, comment. n.2. He was assigned a criminal history category of V based on his history of juvenile and adult convictions including prior robberies, assault involving the threat of bodily injury, and firearms offenses. Based on this, his Guidelines range for Counts 1 and 4 was determined to be life imprisonment, with a statutory maximum of twenty years for Count 1 and life imprisonment for Count 4. For Counts 2 and 3 (the 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) violations), which were calculated separately, his Guidelines range was ten years imposed consecutively to all other counts, with a statutory minimum of ten years and maximum of life. The PSR recommended that the Court vary downwards and impose a sentence of 420 months' imprisonment.

At Somerville's sentencing, the district court heard testimony regarding his gang membership and his attempts to influence witnesses' testimony against him, including by pressuring a witness to provide a false alibi for him, implying to his codefendants that his gang would attack them if they admitted...