United States v. Vasquez
672 F. App'x 56
2d Cir.2016Background
- Emiliano Vasquez and Alejo Polanco were convicted after a joint jury trial of narcotics conspiracy (21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846), Hobbs Act robbery conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 1951), and firearms offenses including 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and § 924(j) relating to a co-defendant’s fatal shooting of Liliana Colmenares.
- Vasquez was tried principally as a getaway driver and convicted under a Pinkerton theory for the firearm offenses; Polanco was convicted as the actual shooter.
- Before trial, Judge Townes held a competency hearing and found Vasquez competent; the case was later reassigned to Judge Dearie, who did not order a new competency hearing.
- Vasquez appealed, arguing (1) trial incompetency / need for a new competency hearing, (2) insufficiency of evidence that the firearm discharge was a reasonably foreseeable Pinkerton consequence, and (3) uncertainty whether the § 924 convictions rested on a valid predicate (“crime of violence” vs. drug-trafficking crime) in light of Johnson-related concerns.
- Polanco’s counsel filed an Anders motion to withdraw, asserting no non-frivolous issues on appeal; the Government moved for summary affirmance. Polanco separately challenged his sentence’s reasonableness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competency to stand trial (Vasquez) | Gov: District courts properly found Vasquez competent after hearing; no new hearing required after reassignment | Vasquez: District court erred — he was incompetent or a new hearing was required after reassignment | Court affirmed: competency finding not clearly erroneous; no abuse of discretion in not ordering new hearing |
| Reasonable foreseeability / Pinkerton liability for firearm death (Vasquez) | Gov: Shooting death was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of robbing drug dealers, supporting Pinkerton liability for § 924(c)/(j) | Vasquez: No agreement that weapons would be discharged; shooter called death an "accident," so foreseeability not shown | Court held evidence sufficient: shooting death was a natural, foreseeable consequence of violent robberies of drug dealers |
| Predicate for § 924(c)/(j) — crime of violence vs drug-trafficking predicate (Vasquez; Johnson/Yates concern) | Gov: Even if Hobbs Act robbery presented a Johnson issue, convictions are supported by a valid narcotics conspiracy predicate | Vasquez: General verdict form creates Yates problem if Hobbs Act robbery is not a categorical crime of violence post-Johnson | Court held no error: jury necessarily relied on the narcotics conspiracy predicate intertwined with the robbery, so § 924 convictions stand |
| Anders withdrawal / sentence reasonableness (Polanco) | Counsel: After review, no non-frivolous appellate issues; government urged summary affirmance | Polanco: (via counsel) raised sentencing issues; potential Johnson argument not advanced by counsel | Court granted Anders withdrawal and summary affirmance; sentence (27 years, below Guidelines) was procedurally and substantively reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Morrison, 153 F.3d 34 (2d Cir.) (standard for competence to stand trial)
- United States v. Nichols, 56 F.3d 403 (2d Cir.) (competency determinations may rest on medical evidence and court observations)
- Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (1975) (court must be alert to changes in competency and order hearing if reasonable cause exists)
- Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640 (1946) (co-conspirator liability for reasonably foreseeable acts in furtherance of conspiracy)
- United States v. Parkes, 497 F.3d 220 (2d Cir.) (foreseeability in Pinkerton context)
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (held residual clause of ACCA unconstitutional; prompted challenges to "crime of violence" predicates)
- United States v. Kerr, 752 F.3d 206 (2d Cir.) (no abuse of discretion in declining new competency hearing despite difficult defendant behavior)
- United States v. Arenburg, 605 F.3d 164 (2d Cir.) (abuse of discretion where competency significantly in doubt)
- United States v. Hill, 832 F.3d 135 (2d Cir.) (rejected Johnson challenge to Hobbs Act robbery)