United States v. Dontiez Pendergrass
995 F.3d 858
| 11th Cir. | 2021Background:
- Over eight weeks in 2016–2017, five armed robberies targeted small businesses in Gwinnett County; surveillance showed a taller, left‑handed robber using a black‑and‑silver pistol, covering his face from the nose down, often wearing a red shirt under a black long sleeve with a distinctive white pattern, white gloves, and a single‑strap cross‑body backpack.
- Ballistics tied .40‑caliber shell casings/cartridge from Polo’s Taqueria, Discount Grocery, and Best Wings to the same Smith & Wesson firearm; a chrome‑barreled scoped rifle used in Polo’s matched a rifle later seized from Pendergrass’s car.
- Forensic testing matched blood at Discount Grocery to Pendergrass’s DNA; cell‑tower dumps and Google geo‑location data placed Pendergrass’s phone near Polo’s, Discount Grocery, and Best Wings at relevant times.
- Search of Pendergrass’s residence and car recovered a black single‑strap backpack, the distinctive black shirt, and the chrome‑barreled rifle; Pendergrass admitted ownership of the shirt and rifle and that he is left‑handed.
- An LG phone seized earlier was suppressed by the district court as unlawfully searched; the government later obtained Google geo‑location data via a warrant based on the defendant’s Gmail account.
- After a five‑day jury trial the defendant was convicted on five Hobbs Act armed‑robbery counts and five § 924(c) firearm counts and sentenced to 552 months; he appealed raising six principal challenges.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of continuance (Sixth Amendment) | Denial left counsel unprepared and prejudiced right to effective assistance | Court had broad discretion; counsel had months to prepare; K‑9 evidence later excluded; no specific missing evidence identified | No abuse of discretion; denial did not severely prejudice defendant |
| Juror 20 excusal under 28 U.S.C. § 1863(b)(6) | Juror was POST‑certified Dept. of Community Supervision employee and thus a member of law enforcement entitled to exemption | Statute exempts members of police departments (in function); DCS is not functionally a police department | Statute read plainly; Juror 20 not exempt and refusal to strike not an abuse of discretion |
| Special Agent Winn’s testimony (hearsay/Confrontation/opinion) | Testimony included hearsay, testimonial statements, and improper opinion/identification | Testimony was investigatory, explanatory, not offered for truth; corroborated by other evidence; not an expert opinion offered as such | No plain error; most challenged statements were non‑hearsay or cumulative; jury instruction addressed identification |
| Google geo‑location data (Fourth Amendment) | Geo‑location was fruit of the suppressed LG phone and should have been excluded | Government had independent sources/inevitable‑discovery theory; evidence otherwise overwhelming | Assuming error, admission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given overwhelming other evidence |
| Sufficiency of evidence for China Star, Bonita Laundry, Best Wings | Evidence insufficient to tie defendant to those three robberies | Modus operandi, overlapping physical evidence, ballistics, cell‑site data, and items seized linked all five robberies to defendant | Evidence sufficient; modus operandi and direct links supported convictions for all five robberies |
| Cumulative error claim | Aggregate of alleged errors deprived defendant of fair trial | Any errors were harmless; properly admitted evidence overwhelmingly proved guilt | No cumulative‑error reversal; trial was fundamentally fair |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Garmany, 762 F.2d 929 (11th Cir. 1985) (district courts have broad discretion on continuances)
- SEC v. Levin, 849 F.3d 995 (11th Cir. 2017) (standard for reviewing denial of continuance)
- United States v. Valladares, 544 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2008) (continuance abuse‑of‑discretion framework)
- United States v. Jeri, 869 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 2017) (need to identify evidence that would have been presented if continuance granted)
- United States v. Bowers, 811 F.3d 412 (11th Cir. 2016) (modus operandi evidence may connect multiple crimes)
- Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009) (exclusionary rule principles)
- United States v. Jiminez, 564 F.3d 1280 (11th Cir. 2009) (investigative out‑of‑court statements may be admissible non‑hearsay to explain investigative acts)
- Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., 139 S. Ct. 524 (2019) (courts must follow plain statutory text)
- United States v. McCullah, 76 F.3d 1087 (10th Cir. 1996) (prospective juror employment not covered by § 1863(b)(6) where not functionally a police department)
- United States v. Hawkins, 934 F.3d 1251 (11th Cir. 2019) (limits on agent testimony crossing fact and expert opinion)