United States v. Guerrier
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 25555
| 1st Cir. | 2011Background
- Guerrier and German robbed Dwight Bennett at a Manchester Street crack house in January 2009, with Guerrier acting as lookout.
- German and Galeano allegedly ran a drug business; Bennett agreed to a New Hampshire operation, sharing profits with them.
- Guerrier was on parole for a prior drug offense, which prompted federal investigators to pursue him in the government’s Hobbs Act case.
- Guerrier was charged with conspiring to violate the Hobbs Act, alleging an effect on interstate commerce from the conspiracy and robbery.
- Guerrier moved to dismiss the indictment pretrial for lack of interstate-commerce evidence and challenged statements made to officers as Miranda-noncompliant; the district court denied both.
- On appeal, the First Circuit reviews de novo the indictment sufficiency and applies clear-error standard to Miranda findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the indictment properly alleged Hobbs Act jurisdiction | Guerrier claims lack of interstate-commerce nexus requires dismissal. | Guerrier contends the indictment fails to show the necessary interstate-commerce connection. | Indictment adequately alleged interstate-commerce nexus; denial of motion to dismiss affirmed. |
| Whether Guerrier's statements were custodial for Miranda purposes | Guerrier asserts custody due to parole status and interrogation setup requiring Miranda warnings. | Guerrier argues the interview was custodial because of setting and expectations of arrest. | Interviews were noncustodial; Miranda warnings not required. |
| Whether the evidence at trial was sufficient to sustain Hobbs Act conspiracy conviction | Sufficient evidence showed a real probability of affecting interstate commerce through the scheme. | Evidence did not establish a minimal impact on interstate commerce. | Evidence supported a rational jury finding the conspiracy affected interstate commerce to a minimal degree. |
| Whether Guerrier pled ineffective assistance of counsel on IADA grounds remains ripe for review | Counsel failed to challenge the IADA-based transfer; should be reviewed now. | Claims are unripe on direct appeal; should be raised in collateral proceedings. | Ineffective-assistance claim is dismissed without prejudice pending potential §2255 relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359 (1956) (indictment sufficient to call for trial on the merits)
- United States v. Lopez-Lopez, 282 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2002) (standard for reviewing indictment sufficiency)
- United States v. Bohai Trading Co., 45 F.3d 577 (1st Cir. 1995) (assessing sufficiency of charging allegations)
- United States v. Ellison, 632 F.3d 727 (1st Cir. 2010) (custody and custody-determined factors for Miranda)
- United States v. Hughes, 640 F.3d 428 (1st Cir. 2011) (custody analysis in Miranda context)
- United States v. Teemer, 394 F.3d 59 (1st Cir. 2005) (factors for custody determination; noncustodial setting)
- United States v. DeCologero, 530 F.3d 36 (1st Cir. 2008) (the Hobbs Act scope and business-depletion theory)
- United States v. Capozzi, 486 F.3d 711 (1st Cir. 2007) (low threshold for affecting interstate commerce)
- United States v. Porcaro, 648 F.2d 753 (1st Cir. 1981) (addressing business-interstate effects in Hobbs Act context)
- United States v. Murphy, 193 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1999) (de minimis or real-probability standard for commerce effect)