United States v. Stubbs, CRIMINAL NO. 1:12-CR-9
| Decision Date | 10 February 2017 |
| Docket Number | CRIMINAL NO. 1:12-CR-9 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JAMAEL STUBBS, Defendant |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania |
(Chief Judge Conner)
A jury found defendant Jamael Stubbs ("Stubbs") guilty of armed bank robbery and use of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence in January 2013. The court sentenced Stubbs to a term of seventy months' imprisonment on the armed bank robbery count and to a consecutive statutory mandatory minimum term of eighty-four months' imprisonment on the firearm count. Stubbs now moves the court pro se to vacate, set aside, and correct his conviction and sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In a supplemental motion, appointed counsel moves the court for vacatur of Stubbs' firearm conviction in light of the United States Supreme Court's decision in Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. ___, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). For the reasons that follow, the court will deny both motions.
The events underlying Stubbs' convictions date to the fall of 2007, when a string of bank robberies began in south-central Pennsylvania. Evidence introduced at trial implicated Stubbs in one of those robberies: an armed bank robbery involving codefendants Nijul Quadir Alexander ("Alexander"), Jami Mansour Shabazz ("Shabazz"), and Tristan Green ("Green").
On November 14, 2007, two men entered the Sovereign Bank at 1442 Bannister Street in York, Pennsylvania, shortly after it opened. (Doc. 196 at 12:13-20:22, 41:3-52:8). Both individuals wielded firearms. (Doc. 197 at 118:4-5). One of the individuals jumped the counter and, at gunpoint, demanded that the tellers turn over all currency in their teller drawers. (Doc. 196 at 15:12-26, 41:12-21, 46:17-47:21). The tellers complied, emptying their drawers and placing stacks of currency inside a backpack held open by one of the men. (Id. at 15:12-16:9; 43:15-25). Witnesses described the backpack as dark in color and appearing "brand new." (Id. at 14:10-12, 43:15-21, 89:1-9). Time-stamped surveillance images establish that the robbery began just after 9:43 a.m. and concluded at approximately 9:45 a.m. (Id. at 21:15-24, 26:3-11, 31:12-17). The suspects fled with $35,063. (Doc. 164 ¶ 5).
Among the currency placed in the backpack were at least three "bait money" dye packs. (Doc. 196 at 16:6-19:8). "Bait money" dye packs outwardly appear to be ordinary stacks of twenty dollar bills. (Id. at 16:18-23). Inside, however, the stack ofcurrency is hollowed out, concealing a tear gas and dye device that is triggered when the pack is removed from the teller's drawer. (Id. at 16:18-17:7). The device becomes activated when the pack is carried off the bank's premises. (Id. at 17:1-7, 84:14-85:8). After a preset amount of time expires, the dye pack explodes, emitting tear gas and a red dye. (Id. at 37:22-38:7, 84:24-85:8).
The suspects fled the bank after the tellers emptied their drawers into the backpacks. (Id. at 13:6-14). Both robbers entered a vehicle waiting outside of the bank, which quickly departed the scene. (See Doc. 197 at 117:14-24). A witness reported that the suspects' small, dark-colored car "flew past" her on the street with red smoke billowing from its windows. (Doc. 196 at 54:8-57:3). The driver and two bank robbers eventually switched into a second getaway vehicle which was waiting with a second driver several blocks away. (Id. at 230:12-231:17).
Investigating officers discovered discarded dye packs and other evidence, including currency, scattered in the vehicle's flight path. (Id. at 60:7-68:20). In addition to exploded dye packs and loose currency abandoned in the street, officers recovered backpacks containing currency, "a mask or do-rag type item," two pair of red latex gloves, two pair of winter gloves, and a loaded .22 caliber revolver. (Id. at 64:13-68:20; see also id. at 80:1-82:10). The discarded dye packs corresponded to the bank's dye pack registries. (Doc. 196 at 35:18-37:16, 88:1-11).
Detective Jeffrey Snell noted the backpacks' brand new appearance and canvassed nearby stores to determine whether the backpacks were purchased locally. (Id. at 89:1-15). His investigation revealed that the backpacks had been purchased at a Walmart store approximately three or four blocks from the bank.(Id. at 89:10-90:15). Walmart surveillance video revealed two suspects purchasing the backpacks together on November 12, 2007. (Id. at 91:4-104:1). Cooperating codefendants Shabazz and Alexander ultimately identified the suspects in the surveillance footage as Stubbs and Green. (See Doc. 197 at 119:3-120:8, 198:11-25; see also Doc. 196 at 235:3-7). Shabazz and Alexander also unequivocally identified Stubbs as the driver to and from the November 14, 2007 bank robbery. (Doc. 196 at 227:7-229:10, 232:4-9; Doc. 197 at 115:2-118:3).
Law enforcement also located the first getaway vehicle: a black Suzuki sedan which had since been resold to an individual in Baltimore, Maryland. (Doc.196 at 110:11-111:10). Detective Snell traveled to Baltimore to examine the vehicle and observed hints of red staining in its carpeting. (Id. at 111:11-112:2). Testing of a carpet sample revealed that stains in the Suzuki matched the chemical composition of the explosive dye packs. (Id. at 113:17-116:25). Defendant Stubbs was the former owner of the Suzuki and owned the vehicle at the time of the November 14, 2007 bank robbery. (Id. at 117:1-120:24). Alexander testified that the getaway vehicle depicted in the bank's surveillance photographs was Stubbs' vehicle. (Doc. 197 at 115:12-19).
On January 25, 2012, a federal grand jury in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, returned a six-count indictment charging the defendant and others with various armed bank robbery and firearm offenses. (Doc. 1). As pertains the November 14, 2007 robbery, the indictment charged Stubbs and codefendants Alexander, Shabazz, and Green with armed bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 2113(a), and 2113(d) and use of a firearm during the armed bank robbery in violation of 18U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). (Id.) The indictment further charged Alexander and Shabazz with armed bank robbery and firearm offenses arising from a January 18, 2012 robbery of AmeriChoice Federal Credit Union, also in York, Pennsylvania, and one felon in possession count each. (Id.) The court appointed Attorney Bryan Matthew McQuillan ("trial counsel") to represent Stubbs.
The grand jury returned a superseding indictment on August 29, 2012. (Doc. 62). The superseding indictment renumbered the November 14, 2007 robbery and firearm charges to Counts III and IV; the January 18, 2012 robbery and firearm charges to Counts IX and X; and the felon in possession charges to Counts XI and XII. (Id.) The superseding indictment also added new counts as follows: armed bank robbery and firearm charges against Alexander, Shabazz, and Green for a September 20, 2007 robbery of Heritage Valley Credit Union in York, Pennsylvania (Counts I and II); armed bank robbery and firearm charges against Stubbs as well as Alexander, Shabazz, and Green for a December 6, 2007 robbery of Sovereign Bank in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania (Counts V and VI); and armed bank robbery and firearm charges against Alexander and Shabazz for a December 21, 2007 robbery of Sovereign Bank in Red Lion, Pennsylvania (Counts VII and VIII). (Id.) On January 24, 2013, the court granted the government's motion (Doc. 156) to dismiss Counts V and VI as to Stubbs. (Docs. 156, 160).
Trial commenced on January 28, 2013, and continued for four days. Alexander and Shabazz both pled guilty and testified for the government at trial. (See Doc. 196 at 206:18-258:18; Doc. 197 at 3:2-63:5, 88:17-201:9). The jury convicted Stubbs of both counts concerning the November 14, 2007 bank robbery. (Doc. 179).With respect to Count IV, the jury found that Stubbs or a coconspirator "did knowingly carry, use, and brandish a firearm during and in relation to" the bank robbery. (Id. at 2). The probation office prepared a presentence report, calculating a Guideline sentencing range of seventy to eighty-seven months' imprisonment, to be followed by a consecutive statutory mandatory minimum term of eighty-four months based on the jury's "brandishing" finding and 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). On May 29, 2013, the court sentenced Stubbs to 154 months' imprisonment, consisting of seventy months on Count III and a consecutive mandatory minimum term of eighty-four months on Count IV. (Doc. 229).
Stubbs appealed his judgments of conviction and sentence to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on June 3, 2013. (Doc. 230). Stubbs challenged the sufficiency of the evidence against him on both aiding and abetting and Pinkerton vicarious liability theories. See United States v. Stubbs, 578 F. App'x 114, 117 (3d Cir. 2014). Stubbs also argued that the government's failure to charge the "brandishing" element in the superseding indictment constituted reversible error in light of the Supreme Court's intervening decision in Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013), which was argued two weeks before trial commenced and decided less than one month after Stubbs' sentencing. See Stubbs, 578 F. App'x at 117.
The Third Circuit rejected both arguments. The court first determined that "ample" record evidence supports a finding that Stubbs was intimately involved in the planning and execution of the robbery. Id. at 117-18. Concerning Alleyne, the court held that omission of a brandishing element from the indictment is error inlight of the Supreme Court's decision, but that Stubbs suffered no prejudice given the "overwhelming and uncontroverted evidence of brandishing." Id. at 118-21 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 633-34 (2002)). Stubbs did not petition the Supreme Court for certiorari. (Doc. 299 at 2).
Stubbs filed the instant pro se § 2255 motion (Doc. 299) and supporting brief (Doc. 300) on ...
To continue reading
Request your trial