United States v. Locklear
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 1758
6th Cir.2011Background
- Locklear was charged with bank robbery (18 U.S.C. § 2113(a)) and felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)) based on evidence from December 24, 2003 and January 11–13, 2004.
- Superseding indictment listed four firearms found in the Lincoln’s trunk and other related items; defense moved to sever the counts as misjoined.
- District court denied severance, holding the counts were related; Locklear was convicted on both counts.
- Guideline range was 292–365 months; district court imposed 292 months (bottom of range).
- Locklear timely appealed, challenging misjoinder, sentence procedures, and allocution rights at sentencing.
- On appeal, court held misjoinder was present but harmless, declined to overturn sentence, and remanded for Locklear to allocute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were the bank robbery and felon-in-possession counts misjoined? | Locklear argues misjoinder under Rule 8(a). | Locklear asserts the counts should have been tried separately. | Counts were misjoined. |
| Did misjoinder result in reversible error under harmless-error review? | Misjoinder could be harmless given overwhelming evidence. | Misjoinder prejudiced the bank-robbery conviction by linking felon status and weapons. | Harmless error; convictions affirmed, though sentence vacated for allocution remand. |
| Whether Locklear's sentence was procedurally unreasonable without explicit addressing of arguments made at sentencing. | District court failed to address § 3553(a) arguments specifically. | Reasons for rejecting arguments were sufficient under Rita. | Procedural reasoning adequate; arguments rejected but sentence affirmed (subject to allocution remand). |
| Did Locklear’s right to allocution at sentencing violate the rules requiring allocution? | Locklear was denied the opportunity to allocute. | Right to allocution violated; remand required. | Right to allocute violated; remand to allow allocution. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Deitz, 577 F.3d 672 (6th Cir.2009) (joinder review and related analysis in Rule 8(a))
- Chavis v. United States, 296 F.3d 450 (6th Cir.2002) (face-of-the-indictment test for misjoinder)
- Lane v. United States, 474 U.S. 438 (1986) (harmless-error standard for misjoinder under Rule 52(a))
- Cody v. United States, 498 F.3d 582 (6th Cir.2007) (harmless-error review in misjoinder context)
- Vonner, 516 F.3d 382 (6th Cir.2008) (en banc discussion on sentencing reasons)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (explanation of reasons required for sentences)
- Haygood v. United States, 549 F.3d 1049 (6th Cir.2008) (allocution rights at sentencing)