United States v. Donyea Fowler
19-3080
| 7th Cir. | Jul 27, 2021Background
- Between Dec 2017 and Feb 2018 a masked man robbed six liquor/convenience stores in South Bend, brandishing a chrome semi‑automatic and stealing cash, cigarettes, cigarillos, lottery tickets, and liquor; surveillance footage and a blue satchel featured in multiple robberies.
- Public tips identified Donyea Fowler; police obtained a warrant to track his cell phone and located him entering a rented car; officers arrested Fowler and found stolen items in the backseat.
- The impounded rental car was searched (after a warrant); officers recovered additional stolen items, gloves, a blue satchel, and a chrome semi‑automatic handgun from the trunk.
- Fowler was indicted on six Hobbs Act robbery counts, multiple § 924(c) counts for brandishing a firearm, and a § 922(g)(1) felon‑in‑possession count; a superseding indictment added additional § 924(c) counts.
- After a four‑day trial a jury convicted Fowler on all counts; the district court imposed 12 months on the non‑§924(c) counts and six consecutive 7‑year §924(c) terms (total 516 months).
- Appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief seeking to withdraw; the court reviewed the issues counsel raised and Fowler’s response and found no nonfrivolous appellate arguments, granted withdrawal, and dismissed the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of stop and seizure (motion to suppress) | Officers had arrest warrant + cell‑site tracking + observed man enter car → stop justified | Stop was unlawful; suppression required | Denial of suppression affirmed; stop lawful given warrant and tracking evidence |
| Search of satchel/trunk | Plain view items in backseat + search warrant for trunk authorized searching satchel | Search of satchel was illegal and evidence should be suppressed | Search lawful: plain view justified broader search and warrant validated trunk/satchel search |
| Cell‑site tracking warrant (Fourth Amendment) | Warrant to track Fowler’s phone supported officers’ actions | Fowler argues tracking was unlawful (raised first on appeal) | Argument forfeited (not raised below); cannot be raised on appeal |
| Superseding indictment / vindictive prosecution | Superseding indictment validly filed; charging decisions presumed valid | Superseding indictment was retaliatory for suppression motion | Untimely and conclusory; must be raised pretrial and requires objective evidence of animus; claim frivolous |
| Juror retention / potential bias | Court investigated juror, found only brief familiarity and juror credible | Fowler sought removal due to juror’s familiarity with witness | No abuse of discretion; trial court’s credibility assessment stands |
| Sufficiency of evidence (Hobbs Act elements & firearm) | Surveillance, witness testimony, recovered gun and stolen goods establish interstate commerce, threat/force, and a real firearm | Evidence insufficient on interstate commerce, threat, or that gun was real | Evidence sufficient for all elements; denial of Rule 29 motion would not succeed |
| Rehaif error (felon‑status knowledge in §922(g)) | Even if instruction omitted knowledge element, Fowler stipulated to status and had multiple prior felony convictions | Jury instructions omitted the Rehaif knowledge element; reversible error | Plain error review; omission harmless given stipulation and overwhelming record of defendant’s knowledge |
| Sentence: consecutive §924(c) terms and guideline calculations | §924(c) mandates consecutive sentences; court calculated guidelines, applied obstruction and criminal‑history points properly | Argued procedural/substantive errors and challenges to enhancements | Sentence lawful: §924(c) consecutive requirement compelled 504 months; remaining 12‑month below‑guidelines sentence reasonable; guideline computations supported and harmless if any error |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Any IAC claim belongs in §2255 collateral review, not direct appeal | Fowler asserts trial counsel ineffective | IAC not raised on direct appeal; proper forum is §2255 |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (standards for counsel to seek withdrawal on frivolous appeal)
- Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019) (knowledge of felon status element in §922(g))
- Greer v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 2090 (2021) (harmless‑error / reasonable probability standard for Rehaif)
- Dean v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1170 (2017) (treatment of §924(c) sentences in overall sentencing)
- Abbott v. United States, 562 U.S. 8 (2010) (consecutive §924(c) sentence interpretation)
- Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295 (1999) (scope of vehicle searches and passenger effects)
- United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 (1981) (reasonable suspicion and investigatory stops)
- United States v. Bailey, 227 F.3d 792 (7th Cir. 2000) (Hobbs Act interstate‑commerce element)
- United States v. Maez, 960 F.3d 949 (7th Cir. 2020) (plain‑error review of Rehaif issues)
- Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (1997) (stipulation to status evidence)
- Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500 (2003) (ineffective‑assistance claims typically raised in §2255)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (procedural and substantive reasonableness review of sentence)