United States v. Simmons
| Decision Date | 16 November 2018 |
| Docket Number | Criminal No. 2:16cr130 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. ANTONIO SIMMONS, NATHANIEL TYREE MITCHELL, and MALEK LASSITER, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia |
This matter is before the Court on Defendants' post-trial motions seeking: (1) leave to file late motions, ECF Nos. 444, 447; and (2) to set aside their verdicts as to certain counts and/or to obtain a new trial, ECF Nos. 445, 448.1 Defendants' motions seeking leave to file late motions are GRANTED to the extent they seek leave to file the motions already before the Court predicated on the Supreme Court's recent decisions in Carpenter v.United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018), and Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018).2
On November 1, 2018, after receiving supplemental briefing relevant to the Dimaya motions, this Court conducted a hearing on the merits of Defendants' Carpenter and Dimaya motions. At such hearing, the Court fully addressed Defendants' motions for a new trial predicated on Carpenter, formally DENYING such motions from the bench based on the application of the "good faith exception" to the warrant requirement. Additionally, the Court denied in part, and took under advisement in part, Defendants' motions predicated on Dimaya. For the reasons discussed below, Defendants'Dimaya motions are GRANTED with respect to Count 30, and are DENIED in all other respects.
Defendants' motions challenge numerous § 924(c) "firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence" convictions predicated on the definition of "crime of violence" set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3), arguing that the Defendants' underlying offenses of conviction do not satisfy the § 924(c)(3)(A) "force clause" and that the § 924(c)(3)(B) "residual clause" is unconstitutionally vague as established by Dimaya.
After a lengthy analysis on the record at the hearing, the Court concluded that Circuit precedent requires this Court to apply the "categorical approach" to both prongs of § 924(c)(3), even though such approach has severe drawbacks. See In re Irby, 858 F.3d 231, 233-34 (4th Cir. 2017); see also United States v. Eshetu, 898 F.3d 36, 37 (D.C. Cir. 2018); United States v. Davis, 903 F.3d 483, 485 (5th Cir. 2018). Applying such categorical approach, the Court then found that the § 924(c)(3)(B) residual clause is unconstitutionally vague. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. at 1223; In re Hubbard, 825 F.3d 225, 231 n.3 (4th Cir. 2016).
Notwithstanding such finding, the Court rejected, on the record, Defendants' arguments challenging the § 924(c) crimes charged in Counts 4, 6, 9, 12, 13, 16, 19, 21, 23, 25 and 28 based on Defendants' contention that "VICAR murder" and "VICAR attemptedmurder," as cross-referenced to Virginia law, are not "crimes of violence" under the § 924(c)(3)(A) force clause. In reaching such ruling, the Court first concluded, with little analysis needed, that "generic" murder constitutes a "crime of violence" under the § 924(c)(3)(A) force clause. Umana v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 3d 388, 395 (W.D.N.C. 2017); see Irby, 858 F.3d at 237; 18 U.S.C. § 1111(a); United States v. Darden, -- F. Supp. 3d. --, No. 3:17crl24, 2018 WL 5784057, at *27 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 2, 2018) ().
The Court then considered murder as punished under the cross-referenced Virginia statute, noting that the Court interpreted the law as requiring it to consider the elements of such state law crime in order to ensure that the federal VICAR murder offenses at issue are proper predicate violent crimes that could support a conviction under § 924(c)(3)(A). Umana, 229 F. Supp. 3d at 395. In analyzing Virginia's murder statute, Va. Code § 18.2-32, this Court concluded that all violations of such statute require the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against another, thereby concluding that a violation of Va. Code § 18.2-32 satisfies the violent force requirement of § 924(c)(3)(A).
To the extent that the Court failed to clearly state on the record that its analysis of Virginia law leads to the conclusion that VICAR murder, as cross-referenced to Virginia law, is itselfa "crime of violence" under § 924(c)(3)(A), the Court expressly makes such finding now. Stated differently, in concluding that all violations of § 18.2-32 require a malicious killing, committed through the application of violent force, the Court finds that the elements of Virginia murder are consistent with the elements of "generic" murder, to include first degree murder by starvation, and second degree murder committed with the degree of "malice" necessary to distinguish murder from manslaughter under Virginia law. Essex v. Com., 228 Va. 273, 280-81, 322 S.E.2d 216, 219-20 (1984); see Umana, 229 F. Supp. 3d at 394-97. Such finding leads to the conclusion that each federal VICAR murder conviction in this case is itself a "crime of violence" under the force clause set forth in § 924(c)(3)(A).
For the same reasons, the federal VICAR attempted murder counts for which a guilty verdict was returned in this case are "crimes of violence" under the force clause set forth in 924(c)(3)(A). See 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A) (). Accordingly, the Court reaffirms its oral DENIALS of Defendants' challenges to all of the § 924(c) convictions in this case for which the jury found that the firearm was used in furtherance of murder or attempted murder, which applies to all § 924(c) convictions other than Count 30.
In addition to the detailed rulings the Court made on the record, the Court took under advisement Defendants' motions challenging Count 30 (possession and discharge of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence), as well as the related issue as to whether the claimed infirmity in Count 30 also undercuts the viability of Defendants' convictions on Counts 8, 15, 18, 27 and 29, all of which charge Defendants with VICAR assault with a dangerous weapon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a). The Court addresses such matters below, in reverse order.
First addressing Counts 8, 15, 18, 27 and 29, as discussed in this Court's prior Order, ECF No. 496, and at the November 1, 2018 hearing, this Court's consideration of Defendants' post-trial motions, attacking the Count 30 convictions for possessing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence based on the Count 29 VICAR assault with a dangerous weapon count, necessarily required the Court to carefully analyze the elements of Count 29 to determine whether such count satisfied the § 924(c)(3)(A) force clause applicable to Count 30. Engaging in such analysis raised questions with the Court as to whether Va. Code § 18.2-282 was a valid predicate state-law crime for a VICAR assault with a dangerous weapon conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a). The Court therefore asked the parties to brief and argue such issue.
Having considered the parties' briefs and oral presentations, the Court finds that any challenge to the viability of the § 1959(a) VICAR assault with a dangerous weapon offenses charged in Counts 8, 15, 18, 27 and 29 predicated on the propriety of a cross-reference to Va. Code § 18.2-282 were waived by Defendants, as expressly asserted by the Government at oral argument.3 Pursuant to Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, a motion challenging "a defect in the indictment or information, including: . . . failure to state an offense," must be raised "by pretrial motion if the basis for the motion is then reasonably available and the motion can be determined without a trial on the merits." Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3) (emphasis added).4 Such Rule goes on to outline the "Consequences of Not Making a Timely Motion Under Rule 12(b)(3)," which are as follows: "If a party does not meet the deadline for making a Rule 12(b)(3) motion, the motion is untimely" and may be considered only if the "party shows good cause." Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(c)(3).
Here, the legal test governing a challenge to the § 1959 (a) charges would require the Court to consider the scope/elements of the "generic" definition of the charged violent crime (here "assault with a dangerous weapon") and determine whether the cross-referenced Virginia state-law crime falls within such generic definition, and it therefore does not turn on the litigated facts of the case. See United States v. Le, 316 F. Supp. 2d 355, 361-62 (E.D. Va. 2004) (citing Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 599 (1990)); see also Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254, 260-61 (2013). Although § 1959(a) is plainly directed at punishing the commission of violent crimes in aid of racketeering, determining whether a defendant violates § 1959(a) does not require an analysis of the statutory term "crime of violence," as defined in either 18 U.S.C. § 16(b) or 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3), thereby rendering the holding in Dimaya irrelevant to the viability of the § 1959(a) charges in this case. Accordingly, the recent decision in Dimaya does not provide "good cause" for Defendants' failure to raise a pretrial challenge to the § 1959(a) counts. Moreover, Defendants have not otherwise demonstrated "good cause" for failing to raise such claim pre-trial, and in fact, did not raise such claim in their post-trial motions, with such issue instead being raised by the Court for discussion. Accordingly, consistent with the Government's opposition to any further motions not directly related to Dimaya/Carpenter, ECF No. 464, at 3, as wellas the "waiver" argument advanced by the Government at the hearing, the Court finds that it is improper to reach the merits of the untimely challenge to the § 1959(a) counts.
Next addressing the validity of Defendants' convictions on Count 30, such post-trial claim is directly impacted by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial