United States v. Ewing
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 2813
8th Cir.2011Background
- Ewing was convicted by a jury of armed robbery of a federally insured Heartland Credit Union and brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence, sentenced to 139 months and 84 months consecutive.
- Evidence showed a masked robber, with a silver handgun, stole $18,600 and fled in a maroon Dodge Dakota; police followed and apprehended Ewing after a chase and collision.
- Casualties of the investigation included cash found on Ewing and the vehicle, a silver handgun, a mask, and stolen cards recovered from Ewing's possession.
- Ewing confessed to the Credit Union and Top Temporary robberies to Detective Thomas and later to FBI Agent Malhoit; he argued Miranda rights were violated during the Malhoit interview.
- The district court denied suppression; it later imposed four sentencing enhancements, which the court later found may have been misapplied, prompting remand for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the evidence sufficient for armed robbery and brandishing? | Ewing contends witnesses and physical evidence fail to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. | Ewing emphasizes absence of the gun on his person and lack of direct identification. | Sufficient evidence supported the convictions. |
| Was the FBI statement properly admitted despite Miranda concerns? | Miranda violation when second warnings were not full, only reminders were given. | Confession to Malhoit should have been suppressed as Miranda error. | Admission was harmless error; statements were properly admitted. |
| Did the district court properly apply all four sentencing enhancements for the robbery? | Enhancements for loss amount and obstruction were proper; other two were proper as to conduct. | Two enhancements for Mattress Giant conduct and carjacking were improper as not supported by relevant conduct. | Two enhancements were improper; remand for resentencing is required. |
| Was the Mattress Giant conduct properly treated as relevant conduct under § 1B1.3(a)(1)(A)? | Mattress Giant robbery and vehicle theft were related to the Credit Union offense. | Evidence showed no preparation or related conduct sufficient to qualify under § 1B1.3(a)(1)(A). | District court erred by treating Mattress Giant conduct as relevant conduct. |
| Was the carjacking/conduct enhancement properly applied? (carjacking and restraint enhancements) | Enhancements justified by actions during the Mattress Giant robbery and related events. | No proof those acts were in preparation for the Credit Union offense; improper reliance on same. | Enhancements improper; remand necessary. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chavez v. Weber, 497 F.3d 796 (8th Cir. 2007) (harmless-error analysis for Miranda violations)
- United States v. Vickers, 528 F.3d 1116 (8th Cir. 2008) (obstruction-of-justice enhancements upheld when willfulness is clear)
- United States v. Lange, 918 F.2d 707 (8th Cir. 1990) (no constitutional right to lie in one's own defense)
- United States v. Stymiest, 581 F.3d 759 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- United States v. Lockett, 393 F.3d 834 (8th Cir. 2005) (plain-error review of omitted de novo review)