United States v. Ramone Mockabee
763 F.3d 777
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- From Aug. 2009–Jan. 20, 2010 the FBI and Indianapolis MPD conducted wiretaps, pen registers, surveillance, controlled buys, and interdictions into a cocaine-distribution organization centered on Ramone Mockabee.
- Wiretaps of four target phones produced over 10,000 calls; investigators (Detective Clark) testified the participants used coded language (e.g., “address,” “ready,” “apron”) which he and cooperating witnesses explained as drug-related.
- Defendants: Mockabee (pleaded guilty), and Jones, Elisha Drake, and Devon Young (tried by jury). All convictions were affirmed on appeal, but several sentences were vacated and remanded.
- Jones was linked by six wiretapped transactions to distribution purchases, GPS fixes of his phone to 2713 Eagledale Drive, sightings of his vehicle, and substantial drugs/guns/cash found in a search of that residence; he was convicted of possession with intent to distribute and felon-in-possession of a firearm.
- Drake’s convictions rested on multiple intercepted calls demonstrating large-quantity purchases, warnings about police activity, and a recorded exchange where she and Mockabee discussed business (“my business is your business”); she was convicted of conspiracy.
- Young’s conviction rested on intercepted calls, testimony about repeated trips to Columbus to obtain and sell crack (with Gary Davis as courier), and an interdiction that produced cocaine; the court found sufficient evidence of conspiracy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause for search warrant of 2713 Eagledale Drive (Jones) | Jones: affidavit lacked a sufficient nexus tying him to the house (no ownership/rental, no registration link, limited observations). | Govt: two early-morning GPS fixes of Jones’s phone and vehicle sightings supported probable cause; magistrate’s inferences entitled to deference. | Affirmed: affidavit provided a substantial basis; even if marginal, Leon good-faith exception applies. |
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove possession/intent and felon-in-possession (Jones) | Jones: insufficient nexus to contraband/guns; mere presence/proximity not enough. | Govt: multiple phone calls ordering distribution quantities, recent GPS/vehicle links, open-view drugs, scales, cash, and firearms support constructive possession and intent to distribute. | Affirmed: evidence sufficient to show substantial connection, dominion, and intent to distribute. |
| Admissibility of detective’s expert interpretation of coded language (Drake) | Drake: Clark’s expert/dual-role testimony was improper and invaded jury’s role; also alleged Rule 704(b) violation (opinions on defendant’s mental state). | Govt: Clark qualified; his interpretation based on training/experience and thousands of intercepts; corroborated by non-expert witness Hudgins. | Conviction affirmed: court erred in allowing dual-role testimony but error was harmless given independent corroborating evidence; no Rule 704(b) violation. |
| Jury findings / sentencing errors (Drake, Jones, Mockabee, and others) | Drake: mandatory-minimum increased by judicial factfinding—Alleyne requires jury findings. Jones/Mockabee: sought application of Fair Sentencing Act or challenge to later guideline amendments and ex post facto impacts. | Govt: at times conceded error (FSA for Jones); otherwise argued proper applications of guidelines and Almendarez-Torres for prior-conviction enhancements. | Sentences vacated/remanded: Drake resentenced consistent with Alleyne (jury required on drug-quantity facts increasing mandatory minimum); Jones remanded for resentencing under the FSA per Dorsey; Mockabee remanded because applying 2010 Guidelines that increased range violated Peugh (Ex Post Facto). |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule)
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (probable cause legal standard and deference to magistrate)
- Peugh v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2072 (applying Guidelines promulgated after offense can violate Ex Post Facto Clause)
- Dorsey v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2321 (Fair Sentencing Act applies to defendants sentenced after its effective date)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (facts that increase mandatory minimum must be found by a jury)
- Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (prior conviction as exception to jury-proof requirement)
- United States v. Koerth, 312 F.3d 862 (good-faith analysis where affidavit marginally establishes probable cause)