United States v. Derrick Godfrey
679 F. App'x 203
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- On June 1–2, 2012, Derrick Godfrey committed three armed robberies in Pennsylvania while brandishing a silver semiautomatic handgun; he fled in a white sedan and took cash in a multicolored bag.
- Police stopped a white sedan after the Dunkin’ Donuts robbery and found Godfrey in the back seat, a silver handgun, a multicolored bag, and cash in a black bag.
- Godfrey, James Thompson, and Wayne Waters were indicted; Waters later pled guilty and died in jail. A superseding indictment added brandishing charges that triggered enhanced penalties under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii).
- After a five-day jury trial Godfrey was convicted of three robberies and related weapons offenses; he was acquitted on a felon-in-possession count by the district court.
- The government dismissed one brandishing count at sentencing; Godfrey received a 509‑month sentence (consecutive mandatory term for the remaining § 924(c) count), restitution, and a special assessment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| District court criminal jurisdiction | Godfrey: federal courts lack criminal jurisdiction under the Constitution; district courts limited to civil matters | Gov't: Congress has power to create and punish federal crimes; 18 U.S.C. § 3231 grants district courts original jurisdiction over federal offenses | Court: Rejects Godfrey; federal criminal jurisdiction is valid and § 3231 confers authority |
| Geographic limits of jurisdiction | Godfrey: District Court power limited to ten‑mile square (Art. I, §8, cl.17) and cannot extend beyond | Gov't: Offenses occurred within Eastern District of Pennsylvania boundaries established by statute | Court: Rejects Godfrey; venue and geographic jurisdiction proper in EDPA |
| Validity of superseding indictment | Godfrey: Superseding indictment fails to allege crimes, was amended without grand jury signature, and improperly omitted Waters | Gov't: Superseding indictment lists statutory offenses and was returned and signed by the grand jury; Waters had pled guilty earlier | Court: Indictment facially sufficient, properly returned/signed by grand jury, and omission of Waters explained; claim fails |
| Authority to imprison / sentencing claims | Godfrey: 18 U.S.C. § 401 is unconstitutional so court lacks power to imprison; court abused power by not ordering imprisonment only until fines/restitution paid | Gov't: §401 (contempt) irrelevant; courts retain sentencing authority; judgment requires payments to begin during incarceration but not to delay imprisonment | Court: Rejects Godfrey; §401 irrelevant and sentencing/collection terms lawful |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Comstock, 560 U.S. 126 (2010) (constitutional basis for federal criminal laws under Necessary and Proper Clause)
- McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819) (broad congressional authority beyond enumerated powers)
- United States v. Huet, 665 F.3d 588 (3d Cir. 2012) (standards for facial sufficiency of an indictment)
- United States v. Vitillo, 490 F.3d 314 (3d Cir. 2007) (elements of an indictment sufficient to apprise defendant)
- Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212 (1960) (indictment charges may not be broadened except by the grand jury)
- United States v. Albertson, 645 F.3d 191 (3d Cir. 2011) (appellate rule: address only issues raised and argued in opening brief)
- Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239 (3d Cir. 2013) (pro se litigants treated the same as other litigants; liberal construction has limits)
- Higgs v. Attorney General, 655 F.3d 333 (3d Cir. 2011) (obligation to liberally construe pro se pleadings)