United States v. Vacarra Rogers
708 F. App'x 178
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Vacarra Rogers and Kevin Honeycutt were convicted after a jury trial of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine; Honeycutt was also convicted of a substantive meth offense and being a felon in possession of firearms.
- Rogers and Honeycutt received guideline-range prison sentences (each 151 months for drug counts; Honeycutt concurrent 120 months on the firearms count) and five years supervised release.
- Evidence at trial included recorded three-way calls showing Rogers directing movement of money and meth between Louisiana and Texas, communications among Rogers, Honeycutt, and co-conspirators, prior two-month-old drug sale involving Rogers, and meth plus firearms found at Honeycutt’s residence.
- Procedural motions: Rogers (pro se) was allowed to proceed with four appellate claims but denied leave to add an Alleyne claim and denied supplementing the record with grand jury transcripts; Honeycutt’s motion to adopt former counsel’s brief was denied.
- On appeal the court reviewed sufficiency of evidence de novo and most other claims for plain error where they were raised for the first time.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy convictions | Rogers/Honeycutt: government failed to prove an agreement/tacit understanding with at least one other person | Government: circumstantial evidence and concerted action (calls, money transfers, possession) prove tacit agreement | Affirmed; evidence sufficient for both defendants to support conspiracy convictions |
| Bruton / Confrontation (out-of-court statements by Honeycutt) | Rogers: Sergeant Knight testified to Honeycutt’s incriminating statements, violating Rogers’ confrontation rights because Honeycutt did not testify | Government: statements did not directly implicate Rogers; testimony was not Bruton-error material | No Bruton error; statements did not directly allude to Rogers |
| Admission of prior bad act (Rogers’ earlier meth sale) under Rule 404(b) | Rogers: prior sale was prejudicial and improperly admitted to show propensity | Government: evidence relevant to intent/knowledge, temporally close, involved same co-conspirators, limited by jury instruction | Admission proper: Beechum test satisfied; probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice |
| Warrantless search consent / suppression (Honeycutt) | Honeycutt: consent was not voluntary; he did not understand right to refuse | Government: no coercion, full cooperation, prior felony experience, Miranda rights acknowledged | Voluntariness finding affirmed (factual finding reviewed for clear error); consent was voluntary |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Alaniz, 726 F.3d 586 (5th Cir. 2013) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- United States v. White, 219 F.3d 442 (5th Cir. 2000) (elements of narcotics conspiracy)
- United States v. Chapman, 851 F.3d 363 (5th Cir. 2017) (tacit agreement and concert-of-action proof of conspiracy)
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968) (out-of-court statements of co-defendant and confrontation rights)
- United States v. Beechum, 582 F.2d 898 (5th Cir. 1978) (en banc) (two-part test for Rule 404(b) admissibility)
- United States v. Garcia-Mendoza, 587 F.3d 682 (5th Cir. 2009) (temporal proximity and probative value in 404(b) analysis)
- United States v. Solis, 299 F.3d 420 (5th Cir. 2002) (consent exception to warrant requirement; voluntariness factors)
- United States v. Freeman, 482 F.3d 829 (5th Cir. 2007) (awareness-of-right-to-refuse factor not dispositive)
- United States v. Smith, 822 F.3d 755 (5th Cir. 2016) (Bruton and harmlessness/context of out-of-court statements)