United States v. Gooch
850 F.3d 285
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Eric Gooch participated in planning multiple robberies (a discount store and two banks) and accompanied co-defendants during the crimes; he sometimes stayed in the getaway car or outside the premises.
- At the discount store robbery Gooch witnessed a co-defendant receive a firearm and had helped plan the job; he did not enter but was charged as an aider/abetter.
- At the first bank robbery Gooch and another robber brandished firearms; at the second bank robbery Gooch remained outside while Williams used a gun to rob and assault bank personnel.
- Indicted on seven counts: two Hobbs Act conspiracy counts, three § 924(c) firearm counts, and two armed bank robbery counts; initially found incompetent but later found competent and chose to self-represent with standby counsel.
- A jury convicted Gooch on the charged counts; the district court imposed a total prison term of 664 months including consecutive 25-year § 924(c) sentences.
- On appeal Gooch challenged (1) sufficiency of evidence for aiding-and-abetting the discount-store and second bank robberies, (2) the district court’s acceptance of his Faretta waiver/self-representation, (3) imposition of consecutive § 924(c) sentences (preserving Deal), and (4) whether Hobbs Act robbery is a ‘‘crime of violence’’ under § 924(c).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency — discount store aiding/abetting | Prosecution: Gooch planned the robbery and witnessed transfer of a firearm; planning shows intent to further the armed robbery | Gooch: He was merely present and did not participate in the actual robbery | Guilty: Planning participation and witnessing the firearm transfer furnished sufficient circumstantial evidence of aiding/abetting |
| Sufficiency — second bank § 924(c) aiding/abetting | Prosecution: prior armed-robbery participation with same group and modus operandi supports inference Gooch knew a gun would be used | Gooch: No direct evidence he knew Williams would possess/use a firearm that day | Guilty: Juror instructions required finding advance knowledge; circumstantial evidence sufficed for a rational juror to infer knowledge |
| Faretta/self-representation waiver | Government: District court conducted thorough colloquy and repeatedly found Gooch competent; bench-colloquy followed Bench Book | Gooch: Was mentally incompetent to waive counsel; initial incompetency finding undermines waiver | Affirmed: Court reasonably found a knowing, intelligent waiver and competency; no violation of right to counsel |
| § 924(c) predicate — is Hobbs Act robbery a "crime of violence" | Government: The indictment, instructions, and statute’s robbery definition require threatened/actual force, qualifying as a crime of violence | Gooch: Hobbs Act is indivisible and could be violated nonviolently (e.g., extortion), so it may not categorically be a crime of violence | Affirmed: § 1951 is divisible; conviction rested on § 1951(b)(1) robbery, which necessarily involves actual/threatened force and is a § 924(c) crime of violence |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (sufficiency review standard for conviction)
- Rosemond v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1240 (advance-knowledge requirement for aiding-and-abetting § 924(c))
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (right to self-representation)
- Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389 (competency standard for waiver of counsel and for trial)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (divisibility and elements/means analysis)
- United States v. Rafidi, 829 F.3d 437 (6th Cir.) (divisibility approach and Shepard-limited evidence review)
- Deal v. United States, 508 U.S. 129 (consecutive § 924(c) sentences for multiple counts)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (limited documents for determining which statutory alternative formed conviction)