United States v. Jean-Daniel Perkins
787 F.3d 1329
| 11th Cir. | 2015Background
- Perkins ran a large-scale credit-card fraud scheme (14 months, thousands of transactions, >$4M) and was indicted on 37 counts including bank fraud and aggravated identity theft.
- After arrest the magistrate found Perkins indigent and appointed counsel; Perkins repeatedly rejected appointed attorneys and filed pro se revocations and other filings challenging counsel’s appointment.
- On the morning of trial Perkins refused to leave his holding cell, threatened violence, told jail callers he planned to “act crazy” to avoid being "present" under Fed. R. Crim. P. 43, and never entered the courtroom; trial proceeded with counsel present and Perkins able to observe by audio/video feed.
- Perkins was convicted on all counts by a jury in his absence and later sentenced to 360 months (336 months for fraud, consecutive 24 months for aggravated identity theft); district court applied a two-level obstruction enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1.
- Perkins moved for a new trial, competency hearing, and recusal; he also challenged suppression rulings (including an out-of-court photo identification). District court denied relief on all claims; Perkins appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Perkins) | Defendant's Argument (United States) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial in Perkins’s absence violated Rule 43 / Sixth Amendment | Trial was invalid because Perkins was not "present" when jury empanelment and trial occurred | Perkins deliberately absented himself to frustrate the court; any error was invited waiver | Court: Perkins invited any Rule 43 error by purposely refusing to appear; claim rejected |
| Whether district court should have ordered a competency hearing before trial | Perkins was possibly incompetent and the court should have sua sponte ordered a hearing | District court observed manipulative, calculated behavior and reasonable basis to find no bona fide doubt of competency | Court: no abuse of discretion denying competency hearing; conduct showed lucidity and strategy |
| Whether sentencing enhancement for obstruction (U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1) and 360‑month sentence were improper | Enhancement and total sentence unreasonable; challenge to application of § 3C1.1 | Perkins willfully impeded proceedings (refusal to appear, threats, filings); district court properly calculated and would have imposed same sentence absent enhancement | Court: enhancement upheld (or harmless if error) and 360‑month sentence is substantively reasonable |
| Whether judge was required to recuse (28 U.S.C. §§ 144, 455) | Judge displayed bias and made off‑record comments; recusal required | Any judicial comments reflected ordinary frustration from Perkins’s deliberate disruptive conduct, not extrajudicial bias; procedural defects in § 144 affidavit | Court: no recusal required; § 144 affidavit procedurally insufficient and objective observer wouldn’t doubt impartiality |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Harris, 443 F.3d 822 (11th Cir.) (invited‑error doctrine bars appellate review)
- United States v. Brannan, 562 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir.) (party that invites error cannot raise it on appeal)
- United States v. Rahim, 431 F.3d 753 (11th Cir.) (Due Process requires competency to stand trial)
- Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 (U.S.) (competency hearing required where bona fide doubt exists)
- United States v. Nickels, 324 F.3d 1250 (11th Cir.) (standard for district court ordering competency hearing)
- United States v. Massey, 443 F.3d 814 (11th Cir.) (willfulness standard for obstruction enhancement)
- United States v. Keene, 470 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir.) (harmlessness of guideline calculation error when court would impose same sentence)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S.) (standard for reviewing substantive reasonableness of sentence)
- United States v. Brown, 441 F.3d 1330 (11th Cir.) (two‑step test for excluding out‑of‑court identifications)