United States v. Patton
927 F.3d 1087
| 10th Cir. | 2019Background
- Patton was the getaway driver in an armed robbery; Harris entered the store with a gun and Patton waited in the car. They fled; Patton was arrested almost immediately, Harris remained at large for ~1 hour.
- About an hour after Patton’s arrest, Harris shot Detective Brian Hill during an encounter while still fleeing; both were wounded and the detective later retired.
- Patton pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting Hobbs Act robbery (18 U.S.C. § 1951) and to using/carrying a firearm during a crime of violence (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)).
- The PSR applied two six-level enhancements: (1) U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(3)(C) (permanent or life‑threatening bodily injury in robbery) and (2) U.S.S.G. § 3A1.2(c)(1) (Official Victim enhancement for assault on law‑enforcement during offense or immediate flight).
- Patton objected, arguing the shooting was not his "relevant conduct" under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B), that he was not "otherwise accountable" for Harris’s shooting, and that the shooting did not occur during "immediate flight." The district court overruled the objections and applied both enhancements.
- The Tenth Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Harris’s shooting was Patton’s relevant conduct under § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B) (scope, furtherance, foreseeability), and (2) Patton was "otherwise accountable" and the shooting occurred during "immediate flight."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Patton) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Harris’s shooting is Patton’s "relevant conduct" under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B) | Shooting occurred after Patton’s arrest so it falls outside his relevant conduct | The shooting occurred during jointly undertaken activity (robbery + flight), was in furtherance of escape, and was foreseeable | Held: Shooting is relevant conduct (scope, furtherance, foreseeable) |
| Applicability of § 2B3.1(b)(3)(C) (six‑level increase for permanent/life‑threatening injury) | Enhancement improper because the injury resulted from post‑arrest conduct not attributable to Patton | Injury resulted from conduct within the scope of jointly undertaken robbery and thus triggers the robbery injury enhancement | Held: § 2B3.1(b)(3)(C) properly applied |
| Meaning of "otherwise accountable" in U.S.S.G. § 3A1.2(c)(1) | "Otherwise accountable" requires additional showing (e.g., ordering, encouraging, or assisting the assault) beyond § 1B1.3 relevant‑conduct rules | "Otherwise accountable" incorporates § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B) jointly‑undertaken relevant‑conduct definition (scope, furtherance, foreseeability) | Held: "Otherwise accountable" equals relevant‑conduct definition; no separate showing required |
| Whether the shooting occurred during "immediate flight" from the robbery for § 3A1.2(c)(1) | One hour lapse and distance means flight was not "immediate"; enhancement improper | "Immediate flight" is fact‑dependent; no break in chain of events here (perimeter, pursuit, Harris still fleeing) | Held: Not clearly erroneous to find no break in causation and that the shooting occurred during immediate flight; enhancement applies |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Orr, 567 F.3d 610 (10th Cir. 2009) (government bears burden by preponderance to prove enhancements)
- Witte v. United States, 515 U.S. 389 (1995) (relevant conduct determines sentencing range)
- United States v. Willis, 476 F.3d 1121 (10th Cir. 2007) (scope, furtherance, foreseeability are independent elements of § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B))
- United States v. Metzger, 233 F.3d 1226 (10th Cir. 2000) (robbery includes flight and immediate consequences; getaway driver accountable for later violence)
- United States v. Lambert, 995 F.2d 1006 (10th Cir. 1993) (getaway driver held accountable for associate’s threats/injuries)
- United States v. Franklin, 321 F.3d 1231 (9th Cir. 2003) (robbery defendant accountable for associate’s shooting at responding officers even if not present)
- United States v. Melton, 131 F.3d 1400 (10th Cir. 1997) (post‑arrest government‑initiated conduct may be outside scope of conspiratorial relevant conduct)
- United States v. Collins, 754 F.3d 626 (8th Cir. 2014) ("immediate flight" narrower than all relevant conduct)
- United States v. Dougherty, 754 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir. 2014) (dictionary definitions applied; eight‑day gap not "immediate")
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (appellate review standard for sentencing reasonableness)