United States v. Torres-Correa
Decision Date | 18 January 2022 |
Docket Number | No. 19-1639,19-1639 |
Citation | 23 F.4th 129 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Jean Carlos TORRES-CORREA, a/k/a Jampi, Defendant, Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit |
Javier A. Morales-Ramos on brief for appellant.
W. Stephen Muldrow, United States Attorney, Mariana E. Bauzá-Almonte, Assistant United States Attorney, and Gregory B. Conner, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
Before Kayatta, Lipez, and Barron, Circuit Judges.
Having participated in the armed robbery of a CVS pharmacy, Jean Carlos Torres-Correa was tried and convicted of interfering with commerce by threats or violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951 and § 2 ("Hobbs Act robbery"), and using, carrying, or possessing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) and § 2. He makes three claims on appeal: (1) Hobbs Act robbery is not a crime of violence for purposes of § 924(c)(1)(A) ; (2) the trial court admitted video surveillance footage without proper authentication; and (3) the trial court improperly excluded impeachment evidence challenging the credibility of the government's cooperating witness. Finding his claims meritless, we affirm.
At approximately 4:00 a.m. on January 13, 2017, three masked assailants -- later identified as Torres-Correa, I.R.,1 and Pablo Díaz-Ramírez -- robbed a CVS pharmacy in Caguas, Puerto Rico. I.R. carried a handgun, Díaz-Ramírez carried a modified AR-15, and Torres-Correa carried a bag to store the proceeds of the robbery. Three people were inside the store -- a clerk, a security guard, and the shift supervisor, Calixto Cotto-Carrasquillo. During the robbery, I.R. and Díaz-Ramírez threatened the three CVS employees with their weapons, and I.R. repeatedly pistol-whipped Cotto-Carrasquillo. I.R., Díaz-Ramírez, and Torres-Correa fled the store having stolen $207 and two bottles of liquor.
During a police interview in an unrelated investigation, Díaz-Ramírez confessed to the CVS robbery, and identified I.R. and Torres-Correa as his accomplices. Díaz-Ramírez also confessed to a series of additional crimes, including the robbery of a Subway restaurant.
Torres-Correa and Díaz-Ramírez were indicted for Hobbs Act robbery ( 18 U.S.C. § 1951 ), and for using, carrying, or possessing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence ( 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) ). Díaz-Ramírez was also indicted for several other offenses. Torres-Correa filed a motion to dismiss the § 924(c) count, claiming that Hobbs Act robbery was not a crime of violence for purposes of § 924(c)(1)(A). The district court denied the motion.
A three-day trial was held in October 2018. The government called three witnesses: the CVS store manager, Rene Alicea-Salgado, the shift supervisor, Cotto-Carrasquillo, and Díaz-Ramírez. Alicea-Salgado testified that on January 13, 2017, he arrived at the store a few hours after the robbery, verified that the security cameras were working, and created a recording of the relevant video footage. He then signed and dated a CD of the recording. Alicea-Salgado referred to "the daily process [by which] managers have to verify that the security system is working" as validating a "checklist" that is provided by the store.
When the government moved to introduce the surveillance footage into evidence, Torres-Correa objected on the basis that Alicea-Salgado had not adequately explained his reference to a "checklist." Following Torres-Correa's objection, the court further questioned Alicea-Salgado regarding the checklist procedure.2 Satisfied with his answers, the court admitted the CD containing the surveillance footage. On cross-examination, in an apparent reference to the process by which he had confirmed that the security cameras were working, Alicea-Salgado testified that he had verified the "checklist" the morning after the robbery.
The next government witness, Cotto-Carrasquillo, testified to the details of the robbery while the government played the surveillance video. The government's final witness, Díaz-Ramírez, testified about the planning of the robbery and Torres-Correa's involvement. During his testimony, the government again played the surveillance footage, and Díaz-Ramírez described what happened and identified Torres-Correa in the video. Díaz-Ramírez also acknowledged that he was testifying pursuant to a cooperation agreement and that he had pleaded guilty to several other crimes set forth in the same indictment, including a robbery at a Subway restaurant and other robberies and a carjacking. He did not, however, discuss the details of these other crimes in his direct examination.
On cross-examination, Torres-Correa's counsel asked Díaz-Ramírez whether, as part of his cooperation, he had provided information to the government about the charges in the indictment to which he had pleaded guilty. Díaz-Ramírez replied that he had. In particular, he testified about providing the government with information about the CVS robbery and the Subway robbery, which was also set forth in the indictment but was a separate count that did not involve Torres-Correa. Regarding the Subway robbery, Díaz-Ramírez stated that he "didn't see all of the details" of this robbery but saw that his accomplices had "jumped over the counter in order to open the cash registers."
Upon hearing this testimony, Torres-Correa sought to impeach Díaz-Ramírez by introducing a recorded interview between Díaz-Ramírez and the FBI. Torres-Correa claimed that, in this video, Díaz-Ramírez had told FBI agents that "he didn't see anything" during the Subway robbery because he was "far away" (i.e., outside of the restaurant), thus purportedly contradicting Díaz-Ramírez's trial testimony that he had seen his accomplices jump over the counter during the robbery.
The government objected to the introduction of the video. It argued that Díaz-Ramírez's statements were not inconsistent, and that -- even if they were inconsistent -- the Subway robbery was a collateral matter of little importance to the case. The court sustained the objection and excluded the video, finding that it had no impeachment value. The court noted that "[e]ven if we set aside the fact that this is about another offense that is not the offense that [Torres-Correa is] on trial for, the fact is that [Díaz-Ramírez] stated upfront that he wasn't inside the Subway when the robbery took place." It continued:
Torres-Correa also sought the court's permission to cross-examine Díaz-Ramírez about his mental health history, noting that Díaz-Ramírez had reported a schizophrenia diagnosis to the probation department. The court ruled that it would prohibit this line of questioning in the absence of a medical expert. Elaborating, the court said that it was inappropriate for Torres-Correa's counsel and Díaz-Ramírez to "talk[ ] about medical facts" and form "a medical hypothesis of what schizophrenia is and fit[ ] it into [the] defense" without the testimony of a medical expert. Since Torres-Correa did not have a medical expert, the court prohibited the line of questioning.
At the close of the government's case, Torres-Correa moved for a judgment of acquittal pursuant to Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The district court denied the motion. Torres-Correa did not present any witnesses.
The jury found Torres-Correa guilty on both counts. He was sentenced to one hundred and thirty-five months of incarceration. This appeal followed.
Torres-Correa argues that Hobbs Act robbery is not a crime of violence for purposes of § 924(c), and, thus, the court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the firearms offense (Count VI). As relevant here, § 924(c)(1)(A) applies to "any person who, during and in relation to any crime of violence ... , uses or carries a firearm, or who, in furtherance of any such crime, possesses a firearm."3 Subsection 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) requires a minimum sentence of seven years "if the firearm is brandished" during commission of the crime of violence. Section 924(c)(3)(A) defines "crime of violence" as a felony that "has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another."4
Torres-Correa's claim that Hobbs Act robbery is not a crime of violence for purposes of § 924(c)(3)(A) is a nonstarter. It is settled law in this Circuit that Hobbs Act robbery categorically constitutes a crime of violence. United States v. García-Ortiz, 904 F.3d 102, 109 (1st Cir. 2018) ().
Torres-Correa asks us to "reconsider[ ]" that precedent. Of course, our panel cannot do so. United States v. Holloway, 499 F.3d 114, 118 (1st Cir. 2007) (). Given the absence of any supervening authority from the Supreme Court or an en banc panel, the district court did not err in refusing to dismiss the § 924(c)(3)(A) charge.
Torres-Correa claims that the district court erred by admitting surveillance footage of the robbery "without proper authentication." Specifically, he argues that the footage was not properly authenticated because the government did not introduce the "checklist" referenced by Alicea-Salgado, and that Alicea-Salgado lacked the personal knowledge necessary to authenticate the footage because (1) he was not present during the robbery, and (2) he did not view the footage until...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Blewitt v. United States
... ... Many ... courts, including the First Circuit, have consistently held ... that a completed Hobbs Act robbery meets the definition of a ... crime of violence under the elements or force ... clause. United States v. Torres-Correa, 23 F.4th ... 129, 133 (1st Cir. 2022); United States v ... Garcia-Ortiz, 904 F.3d 102, 109 (1st Cir. 2018) ... Petitioner argues, however, that a recent Supreme Court case, ... United States v. Taylor, 142 S.Ct. 2015 (2022), ... undermines that conclusion.[3] In ... ...
-
United States v. Stoney
...White, 678 F. App'x 80, 82 (3d Cir. 2017); United States v. McLean, 702 F. App'x 81, 89 (3d Cir. 2017). 5. See United States v. Torres-Correa, 23 F.4th 129, 133 (1st Cir. 2022); United States v. Dominguez, 954 F.3d 1251, 1261 (9th Cir. 2020), vacated on other grounds, — U.S. —, 142 S. Ct. 2......
-
Maldonado v. United States
... ... It is settled ... law in the first circuit that Hobbs Act robbery categorically ... constitutes a crime of violence, United States v ... Garcia-Ortiz, 904 F.3d 102,109 (1st Cir. 2018), and most ... recently in United States v. Torres-Correa, 23 F ... 4th 129, 133 (1st Cir. 2022) ... Petitioner ... also based his new Hobbs Act allegation on the proposition ... that the Court had to wait the outcome of the pending Supreme ... Court case of United States v. Taylor, 142 S.Ct ... ...
-
United States v. Mello
... ... “This ... standard does ‘not require the proponent of the ... evidence to rule out all possibilities inconsistent with ... authenticity.'” Id. (quoting United ... States v. Holmquist , 36 F.3d 154, 168 (1st Cir. 1994)) ... United States v. Torres-Correa , 23 F.4th 129, 133-34 ... (1st Cir. 2022) ... In Holmquist , the First Circuit wrote: ... There is no single way to authenticate evidence. In ... particular, the direct testimony of a custodian or a ... percipient witness is not a sine qua non to the ... ...