United States v. Raphael Person, Jr.
714 F. App'x 547
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Person and co-conspirators targeted private car sellers who posted ads on Craigslist, buying cars for cash and then robbing the sellers after the sale (robberies in 2011 and 2012).
- In each robbery, Person and accomplices approached sellers armed with AR-15–style rifles, impersonated law enforcement, fired shots into the air, and stole the cash proceeds ($5,900 and $18,000).
- During the 2012 robbery Person struck one victim with the butt of a gun, causing the victim to "stumble halfway to the ground" but not seek medical attention.
- A jury convicted Person of conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery and two Hobbs Act robberies (18 U.S.C. § 1951), and two counts of using/discharging a firearm during a crime of violence (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)).
- The PSR applied a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(3)(A) for ‘‘bodily injury’’ based on the gun-butt strike; the district court adopted that enhancement and sentenced Person to 86 months on the Hobbs Act counts plus mandatory consecutive § 924(c) terms (10 and 25 years), for an aggregate 506 months.
- On appeal the Sixth Circuit affirmed the convictions and the bodily-injury enhancement but remanded for resentencing in light of Dean v. United States (allowing consideration of § 924(c) mandatory minimums when imposing other counts).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of commerce element for Hobbs Act convictions | Government: Craigslist use showed the internet was a channel of interstate commerce, satisfying § 1951 commerce element | Person: Government failed to prove effect on interstate commerce | Held: Affirmed — jury could conclude internet (Craigslist) was a channel of interstate commerce and supported Hobbs Act convictions |
| Sufficiency of evidence of guilt generally | Government: testimony of co-conspirators, victims, and stipulation about Craigslist supported convictions | Person: Insufficient evidence for convictions; moved for acquittal under Rule 29 | Held: Affirmed — viewing evidence in prosecution's favor, rational juror could find guilt beyond reasonable doubt |
| Sentencing enhancement for "bodily injury" under U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(3)(A) | Government/PSR: Victim testified he was hit, stumbled; that is a "significant" injury warranting +2 level | Person: No lasting injury, no medical treatment; enhancement improper | Held: Affirmed — district court's factual finding not clearly erroneous; blow to head with gun butt is a significant injury under the guideline definition |
| Resentencing in light of Dean v. United States | Government: earlier precedent required separate consideration, but Dean now permits considering § 924(c) mandatory minimums when sentencing on other counts | Person: Did not raise Dean claim below; argues district court could not consider § 924(c) at original sentencing | Held: Remand for resentencing — Dean abrogates prior binding Sixth Circuit rule; district court may consider the existing § 924(c) mandatory terms when reimposing Hobbs Act sentence (plain-error standard applied but remand appropriate) |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (conviction must be supported by evidence that any rational trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt)
- United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (Commerce Clause categories framework)
- Taylor v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2074 (interpretation of Hobbs Act commerce coverage and relation to Commerce Clause)
- Dean v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1170 (sentencing courts may consider § 924(c) mandatory minimums when imposing other sentences)
- United States v. Collins, 799 F.3d 554 (6th Cir. standard for sufficiency review)
- United States v. Moon, 513 F.3d 527 (standard of review for guideline application and deference to district court findings)
- United States v. Chambers, 441 F.3d 438 (internet as channel of interstate commerce)
- United States v. Davenport, [citation="30 F. App'x 338"] (blow to the head with a gun can constitute "bodily injury" under the guidelines)
- United States v. Franklin, 499 F.3d 578 (prior Sixth Circuit rule limiting consideration of § 924(c) at sentencing; abrogated by Dean)