United States v. Joshua Conlan
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 7956
| 5th Cir. | 2015Background
- Conlan, who had a prior teenage relationship with a TV reporter (JMP), began an escalating year‑long campaign of unwanted emails, texts, social‑media messages, calls, and in‑person contacts directed at JMP and her husband (JP), including threats, sexualized messages, disclosure of JMP’s home address, and a package with a lip‑marked phone.
- After police warned Conlan to stop and told him he would be arrested if he came to Austin, he traveled interstate to their neighborhood; officers arrested him at a motel and recovered cellphones and a laptop from his room and a loaded handgun and riot stick from his vehicle.
- Conlan was indicted on three counts under 18 U.S.C. § 2261A (interstate stalking) targeting JMP (Counts One and Two) and JP (Count Three). He was found competent, tried, convicted on all counts, and sentenced to 96 months imprisonment plus supervised release.
- On appeal Conlan challenged (inter alia) sufficiency of intent, vagueness of § 2261A, multiplicity/double jeopardy, suppression of evidence, withdrawal/substitution of counsel and denial of self‑representation, juror misconduct/mistrial denial, Speedy Trial Act and constitutional speedy‑trial claims, and sentencing.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed in all respects, finding sufficient circumstantial evidence of intent, rejecting vagueness and multiplicity claims, upholding the denials of suppression and mistrial, and finding no reversible error in counsel substitutions, Faretta denial, speedy‑trial rulings, or the upward variance sentencing decision.
Issues
| Issue | Conlan's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of intent under § 2261A | Evidence insufficient to show intent to kill, injure, harass, intimidate, or place under surveillance with such intent | Messages, escalation after warnings, interstate trip armed with weapons support inference of required intent | Affirmed — circumstantial evidence supports jury inference of intent |
| Vagueness of § 2261A ("harass" and "intimidate") | Terms undefined; statute could criminalize innocent conduct | Terms common‑meaning, statute includes intent and effect elements, course‑of‑conduct definition narrows scope | Affirmed — statute not unconstitutionally vague on plain‑error review |
| Multiplicity / Double jeopardy (Counts One & Three) | Sentences multiplicitous because course of conduct allegedly identical | Unit of prosecution is the targeted person; separate intents/effects required for separate victims | Affirmed — separate convictions/sentences for different victims lawful |
| Suppression: seizure of laptop/phones (motel room) | Seizure unlawful; officers created situation to obtain access | Officers lawfully arrested him at desk, accompanied him to room at his request; items in plain view and incriminating given context | Affirmed — plain‑view doctrine applies |
| Suppression: vehicle search / weapons | Warrantless seizure/search of car improper; exigency required | Probable cause to seize vehicle as instrument/evidence of crime; inventory search valid | Affirmed — vehicle seizure/inventory search lawful; any error harmless |
| Withdrawal of counsel (Gonzalez) | Withdrawal was improper / prejudicial | Counsel threatened; ethical conflict; district court found irreconcilable conflict and appointed successor | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion in permitting withdrawal |
| Denial of self‑representation; refusal to appoint substitute counsel | Requested to represent self and sought new counsel before trial | Faretta invocation not clear and unequivocal; no substantial conflict with appointed counsel; request viewed as delay tactic | Affirmed — court did not err denying Faretta request or appointing substitute counsel |
| Juror misconduct / mistrial motion | Juror disregarded instructions; jury possibly deadlocked — requested mistrial | Court investigated, reinstructed, individually interviewed jurors, juror affirmed ability to follow law; verdict returned soon after | Affirmed — denial of mistrial not an abuse of discretion |
| Speedy Trial Act / Sixth Amendment speedy trial | Multiple periods counted as non‑excludable created STA violation and constitutional violation | Numerous statutory exclusions applied (competency proceedings, interlocutory appeal, pending motions, ends‑of‑justice findings); any nonexcludable days within limit | Affirmed — no STA violation; constitutional claim waived by inadequate briefing |
| Sentencing: consecutive term and application of U.S.S.G. § 5G1.2(d) | Court misapplied § 5G1.2(d) to impose consecutive term | Court imposed an upward variance under § 3553(a), not a § 5G1.2(d) mechanical application | Affirmed — consecutive sentence was an above‑guidelines variance; no plain error shown |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Shrader, 675 F.3d 300 (4th Cir.) (statute’s unit of prosecution is targeted individual; intent/effect analysis)
- United States v. Bowker, 372 F.3d 365 (6th Cir.) (rejecting vagueness challenge to § 2261A)
- United States v. Osinger, 753 F.3d 939 (9th Cir.) (vagueness and statutory scope discussion)
- Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (plain‑view seizure standard)
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (self‑representation requires clear and unequivocal invocation)
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (double jeopardy / multiplicity test)
- United States v. Cooper, 949 F.2d 737 (5th Cir.) (vehicle seizure as instrument/evidence of crime and inventory searches)
- Washington v. Chrisman, 455 U.S. 1 (officers may accompany arrestee to room and seize items in plain view)
- Renico v. Lett, 559 U.S. 766 (deference to district court on mistrial and juror misconduct determinations)
- United States v. Vargas‑Ocampo, 747 F.3d 299 (5th Cir.) (standard for sufficiency review)