United States v. Jacinto Taron Robinson
16-17547
| 11th Cir. | Dec 8, 2017Background
- Robinson and co-defendants arranged a sale/return of a 1989 Mercury; Robinson was introduced as a "brother" and identified as a mechanic.
- At a gas station meeting, Robinson examined and then drove the Marquis; another co-defendant (Jones) approached, pointed a gun at buyer Allen, and forced Allen out.
- Jones sat in the passenger seat and Robinson drove away in the stolen car; Robinson initially denied presence to police but later gave an account consistent with the victims.
- A grand jury charged Robinson with aiding and abetting carjacking (18 U.S.C. § 2119 & § 2) and aiding and abetting brandishing/using a firearm during a crime of violence (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) & § 2).
- A jury convicted Robinson on both counts; the district court sentenced him to 96 months (Count I) plus 84 months consecutive (Count II) = 180 months total.
- Robinson appealed challenging (1) sufficiency of evidence for both convictions and (2) substantive reasonableness of his sentence relative to a co-defendant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency: Did government prove Robinson willfully participated in the carjacking (aiding and abetting)? | Robinson: he was only a mechanic/participant in a benign inspection and was not willful in the carjacking. | Government: circumstantial evidence shows affirmative acts (ruse, driving away, lying) supporting willful participation. | Affirmed — evidence sufficient; jury could infer Robinson acted in furtherance and willfully participated. |
| Sufficiency: Did government prove Robinson had the necessary knowledge that a co-defendant would use/brandish a firearm (§ 924(c) aiding and abetting)? | Robinson: no direct evidence he knew Jones would use a gun. | Government: presence with Jones, seeing the gun pointed, and continued flight supports inference of advance knowledge or implied consent. | Affirmed — circumstantial evidence and failure to withdraw supported inference of knowledge. |
| Sentencing reasonableness: Was Robinson's 180-month sentence substantively unreasonable due to disparity with co-defendant Hinton’s 120-month sentence? | Robinson: sentence is excessive compared to Hinton despite similar age/criminal history and greater culpability of Hinton. | Government/District Court: court considered § 3553(a) factors, Robinson’s extensive criminal history justified higher sentence; within guideline range. | Affirmed — district court did not abuse discretion; sentence reasonable and differences explained by criminal history and judge’s weighing of § 3553(a) factors. |
| Procedural standard for review | Robinson argued errors under deferential standards? | Appellate court applies de novo review for sufficiency and abuse-of-discretion for sentencing. | Court applied correct standards (de novo for sufficiency; abuse-of-discretion for sentence) and affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rosemond v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1240 (2014) (advance knowledge requirement for accomplice liability under § 924(c))
- United States v. Sosa, 777 F.3d 1279 (11th Cir. 2015) (elements of aiding and abetting and requirement of affirmative action with intent)
- United States v. Jiminez, 564 F.3d 1280 (11th Cir. 2009) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- United States v. Seabrooks, 839 F.3d 1326 (11th Cir. 2016) (post-commission knowledge can support § 924(c) aiding-and-abetting conviction)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (abuse-of-discretion standard and review of sentencing reasonableness)
- United States v. Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d 1249 (11th Cir. 2015) (deference to district court’s weighing of § 3553(a) factors)
- United States v. Alvarado, 808 F.3d 474 (11th Cir. 2015) (reasonableness expectation for within-guidelines sentences)
- United States v. Docampo, 573 F.3d 1091 (11th Cir. 2009) (§ 3553(a)(6) requires similarly situated defendants to show unwarranted disparity)