United States v. Lloyd Joyner
899 F.3d 1199
11th Cir.2018Background
- Joyner and Sturgis were tried for a series of CVS and Walgreens robberies in May–June 2015; both convicted on nine counts after a six-day jury trial. Joyner had additional robbery counts and received a 480‑month sentence; Sturgis 384 months.
- The government introduced cell‑site location records obtained via orders under the Stored Communications Act (SCA). Defendants moved to suppress these records as warrantless searches.
- During deliberations the jury requested dates/locations; the court belatedly provided the superseding indictment but did not repeat the instruction that the indictment is not evidence. Defense objected.
- Joyner filed multiple pretrial motions for new counsel alleging breakdown in communications and later argued a Bruton violation from co‑defendant statements admitted at trial.
- At sentencing, the Probation Office applied U.S.S.G. § 3D1.4 and mistakenly added 5 levels for five units (should be 4), producing an incorrect total offense level and Guidelines range for Joyner; the government conceded the error on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether giving the indictment to jurors during deliberations without repeating that the indictment is not evidence misled the jury | Joyner & Sturgis: providing the indictment then without restating the non‑evidence instruction risked implying the indictment was evidence | Government: jury had been instructed twice earlier that the indictment is not evidence; providing the indictment merely answered jurors’ request for dates/locations | No abuse of discretion; prior instructions and context sufficed — conviction affirmed on this point |
| Whether cell‑site data obtained via SCA § 2703(d) orders should have been suppressed under the Fourth Amendment | Joyner & Sturgis: the records were a search requiring a warrant (Carpenter), so evidence should be excluded | Government: orders complied with SCA and Eleventh Circuit precedent (Davis); officers acted in objectively reasonable good faith under Leon exception | Suppression denial affirmed: Davis controlled at the time and Leon good‑faith exception applies despite Carpenter decision |
| Whether the district court abused discretion in denying Joyner’s motions for new appointed counsel | Joyner: complete breakdown in communication and loss of confidence required substitution | Government: no showing of good cause (conflict, total breakdown, or ineffective representation) | No abuse of discretion; magistrate conducted hearings and found no good‑cause basis to replace counsel |
| Whether admission of co‑defendant statements violated Bruton | Joyner: statements that Sturgis stayed at Joyner’s apartment and admissions about movements/gun ownership implicated Joyner | Government: statements were not facially inculpatory; they became incriminating only when linked to other evidence | No Bruton error: statements were not clearly inculpatory on their face and thus admissible |
| Whether Joyner’s Guidelines calculation (§ 3D1.4) was erroneous | Joyner: (on appeal) PSR applied the wrong increase (5 levels) for five units | Government: conceded the PSR incorrectly added 5 levels and agreed resentencing is required | Sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing under correct offense level (4‑level increase) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Davis, 785 F.3d 498 (11th Cir. 2015) (upholding SCA § 2703(d) orders as consistent with Fourth Amendment at that time)
- Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018) (holding government’s acquisition of cell‑site location records is a search generally requiring a warrant)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good‑faith exception to exclusionary rule)
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968) (co‑defendant confession implicating defendant and Confrontation Clause limits)
- Molina‑Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016) (sentencing under an incorrect Guidelines range can itself show prejudice)
- United States v. Lopez, 590 F.3d 1238 (11th Cir. 2009) (standard of review for district court responses to jury questions and refusal to give jury instructions)