United States v. Deundrae Miller
681 F. App'x 381
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Deundrae Lydell Miller was convicted by a jury of multiple Hobbs Act robberies (June 2, 4, 7, 19, 24, 2014), attempted Hobbs Act robbery, five §924(c) firearm counts, and being a felon in possession of a firearm.
- Several robberies were committed with co-defendant Jesse Lee Bell; Bell did not testify at the joint trial.
- A government witness briefly recounted an inculpatory statement by Bell implicating Miller in the June 2 robbery; Miller moved for a mistrial under Bruton.
- The district court instructed the jury immediately to disregard Bell’s statement and denied the mistrial motion.
- Miller also argued that Hobbs Act robbery is not a "crime of violence" under §924(c) after Johnson, and that §924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague.
- The Government conceded constitutional error as to the Bruton issue, and the appeals court reviewed the harmlessness of that error and reviewed the §924(c) challenges for plain error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court abused discretion by denying mistrial after a non-testifying co-defendant’s inculpatory statement was admitted | Miller: Bruton violation; Bell’s statement was the only evidence of Miller’s presence at June 2 robbery | Gov: Error is harmless given other evidence and curative instruction | Denial of mistrial affirmed — error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Whether §924(c)(3)(B) definition of "crime of violence" is unconstitutionally vague post-Johnson | Miller: §924(c)(3)(B) is vague under Johnson | Gov: Precedent upholds analogous provisions; §924(c)(3)(B) remains constitutional | No plain error; §924(c)(3)(B) not invalidated by Johnson under Fifth Circuit precedent |
| Whether Hobbs Act robbery is a categorical "crime of violence" under §924(c)(3)(A) | Miller: Hobbs Act robbery can be committed without violent physical force, so not categorical | Gov: Hobbs Act robbery necessarily involves violent force and qualifies | Rejected — Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a crime of violence under §924(c)(3)(A); claim foreclosed by precedent |
| Whether the §924(c) counts should be dismissed | Miller: Counts invalid because underlying offenses aren’t crimes of violence | Gov: Underlying Hobbs Act robberies are crimes of violence; §924(c) counts valid | §924(c) counts stand; no plain or reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968) (Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause prohibits admission of non-testifying co-defendant’s confession that incriminates defendant in joint trial)
- United States v. Powell, 732 F.3d 361 (5th Cir. 2013) (harmless-error analysis for Confrontation Clause violations in joint trials)
- United States v. Schmick, 904 F.2d 936 (5th Cir. 1990) (context for limited testimony by one of many witnesses and impact on Bruton analysis)
- United States v. Ebron, 683 F.3d 105 (5th Cir. 2012) (standards for mistrial requests and district court discretion)
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (held ACCA residual clause void for vagueness; basis for vagueness challenges)
- United States v. Gonzalez-Longoria, 831 F.3d 670 (5th Cir. 2016) (upheld constitutionality of §16(b) after Johnson; persuasive for §924(c)(3)(B))
- United States v. Buck, 847 F.3d 267 (5th Cir. 2017) (held Hobbs Act robbery satisfies §924(c)(3)(A) as a crime of violence)