United States v. Carey Breshers, Jr.
684 F.3d 699
7th Cir.
2012
Check Treatment
Docket

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carey L. BRESHERS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-1364.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Decided July 5, 2012.

Argued May 29, 2012.

doubt.” . Accordingly, the previous seizure of the firearms, what Probation Officer Perry presumably told Griffin‘s father during their phone call, and what conclusions Griffin may or may not have drawn from thе previous gun seizure and his meeting with Perry are all insufficient to show constructive possession by Griffin himself.

Nor does Mario Walker‘s testimony provide the “something more” missing from the government‘s case. As in many cases of supposed confessions to оther prisoners, the credibility of Walker‘s testimony was subject to attack, but in light of the jury‘s verdict, we accept it at face value for purposes of appeal. The critical problem with Walker‘s testimony is that it did not attribute to Griffin possession of the specific shotgun or ammunition for which he was convicted. Walker testified that Griffin had told him that two handguns hidden behind the stove were his. No handguns were actually found behind the stove, and the jury also did not find Griffin guilty of possessing any handgun or even any of thе shotguns behind the refrigerator. We must assume that the jury did not believe Walker on that point, or at least did not believe him unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt.

The government discounts the absence of testimony from Walker tying Griffin to the specifiс shotgun and ammunition for which he was actually convicted. The government argues that the jury could have inferred from Walker‘s testimony about Griffin‘s connection to some of the guns seized from the residence that, at a minimum, he intended to exercise control over the firearm most readily at hand. There were, however, five guns located in the kitchen, apparently mere steps apart. We cannot discern how the gun behind the door was any more readily available than the guns bеhind the refrigerator, such that a non-arbitrary distinction can be drawn between them. Walker‘s testimony also failed to provide the “something more” the government needed to prove that Griffin constructively possessed the shotgun and ammunition for whiсh he was convicted.

III. Conclusion

Even when we construe the evidence and all of the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from it in the light most favorable to the government, the evidence was not sufficient to support a finding, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Griffin intended to exercise control over his father‘s shotgun and the nearby ammunition. Griffin‘s conviction is therefore REVERSED.

Kit R. Morrissey (argued), Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Criminal Division, Fairview Heights, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Phillip J. Kavanaugh, III, G. Ethan Skaggs (argued), Attorneys, Office of ‍​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​​​‌​​‌​‌‌​‌​​​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‍the Federal Public Defender, East St. Louis, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before WOOD, SYKES, and TINDER, Circuit Judges.

WOOD, Circuit Judge.

Following his convictions for kidnapping and interference with commerce by robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1201(a)(1) and 1951, Carey Breshers received a sentence that included a restitution order of $44,618.50 pursuant to the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3663A. On appeal, Breshers argues that the restitution was unauthorized because his victims did not suffer physical injury. Breshers failed to object to the order before the district court, however, and this omission leaves us with a record that was never properly developed on the question of the nature of the victims’ injuries and associated expenses. Finding no plain error in the district court‘s order, we affirm.

I

On October 26, 2010, armed with a firearm, Breshers walked into World Finance, Inc., a consumer installment loan business in O‘Fallon, Illinois. He instructed two World Finance employees, M.L. and T.A., to enter a back room in the building and asked them about their personal finаnces. The two employees told him they had no money. Breshers then asked them where the bank for World Finance is located, and they said South Carolina. He directed M.L. and T.A. to leave their cell phones, lock up the office, and get into T.A.‘s Pontiac Grand Prix. T.A. was instructed to drive while he and M.L. sat in the back seat. Breshers told M.L. and T.A. that he needed money. T.A. suggested that they could get money from World Finance. He told her to drive back to the company‘s office and, once there, she wrote a check for $3,000 at his direction. They made two attempts to cash the check at a nearby bank, both unsuccessful.

At that point, M.L. and T.A. told Breshers that they had about $1,000 available at World Finance. Apparently willing to settle fоr this lower amount, Breshers ordered them to return to the office, where they gave him $1,104. After that, Breshers instructed them to get back into T.A.‘s car and directed T.A. to drive to St. Louis, Missouri (a little less than 20 miles away). During the ride, he commented that he had committed a similar offense in Oklahoma and that his hostage had been freed unharmed. He did the same with T.A. and M.L., releasing them behind an abandoned building off the highway. He was arrested on October 31, 2010, for a separate offense and later admitted to the Wоrld Finance crimes.

A grand jury returned a four-count indictment against Breshers on November 17, 2010: two counts of kidnapping, one count of interference with interstate commerce by robbery, and one count of use or carrying a firearm during a crimе of violence. He entered a plea of guilty on all four counts without a plea agreement. Breshers later filed a motion to withdraw ‍​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​​​‌​​‌​‌‌​‌​​​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‍his guilty plea on Count 3 because he had not been informed that it carried a 25-year minimum sentence. He then filed an amended motion to withdraw his guilty pleas on all counts because there was significant evidentiary overlap on the four counts. The district court dismissed Count 3, but it denied his motion with respect to the other counts.

The district court then рroceeded to sentencing. T.A. provided a victim statement in which she requested the maximum sentence for Breshers. She testified that the crime had caused her marital problems, loss of employment, strain on friends and family, and the destruction of her sense of security. She further testified that she now suffers from anxiety, insomnia, panic attacks, and memory problems. She is under psychiatric care and takes antidepressant medication. Since the offense, T.A. has been on temporary disability, which pays 66% of her normal salary. She requested restitution for $105 in gas from October 29, 2010, through June 15, 2011, for transportation to and from the facility where she receives medical treatment. She estimated additional transportation costs for the following year at about $200. T.A. stated that she had lost eight months of wages and that worker‘s compensation pays only $1,600; she represented that she would be compensated $2,400 if she was unable to return to work in the following year.

Marilyn Messer, World Acceptance Corporation Senior Vice President of Human Resources, submitted a statement describing the impact of the offense on the business. She reported that World Acceptance, which does business as World Finance, has paid $11,947.40 for M.L. and $14,695.34 for T.A. through insurance and its worker‘s compensation carrier, The Hartford. It has reserved $55,654 and $65,908 for the care and support of M.L. and T.A., respectively. World Acceptance was not sure whether M.L. or T.A. would return to work. It also lost the $1,104 that was taken during the course of the robbery.

The district court sentenced Breshers to 293 months each for Counts 1 and 2, and 240 months for Count 4, running concurrently. It added three years’ supervised release for each count, also to run сoncurrently. The district court also ordered a $300 special assessment, no fine, and restitution of $40,289.50 to The Hartford, $1,104 to World Acceptance, and $3,225 to T.A. Breshers appeals only the restitution orders for The Hartford and T.A., arguing that neither is authorized under the MVRA because the victims did not suffer physical injury.

II

We review the district court‘s order of restitution for plain error because Breshers failed to object to it in the district court. . Under plain error review, “an appellate court may, in its discretion, correct an error nоt raised at trial only where the appellant demonstrates that (1) there is an ‘error‘; (2) the error is ‘clear or obvious, rather than subject to reasonable dispute‘; (3) the error ‘affected the appellant‘s substantial rights, which in the ordinary сase means’ it ‘affected the outcome of the district court proceedings‘; and (4) ‘the error seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.‘” , quoting . This case provides an important reminder of thе valuable principle justifying this higher hurdle for the party challenging the district court‘s ruling. By failing to raise this issue, Breshers deprived the district court and the government of the opportunity to explore T.A.‘s injuries ‍​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​​​‌​​‌​‌‌​‌​​​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‍and to develop a record on that subjeсt. We are unable to determine from the stipulated facts whether T.A. may have suffered some form of physical injury; if a more fully developed record showed that she had, then this appeal would probably never have reached oral argument.

A

Bearing in mind the limited information before us, we turn to Breshers‘s argument. He contends that the district court plainly erred in ordering restitution for The Hartford and T.A. because, in his view, the MVRA, 18 U.S.C. § 3663A, authorizes payment based only on the victim‘s physical—as contrasted with mental—injuries. A plain reading of the statute does not clearly support Breshers‘s position. Section 3663A(b)(2) states that “in the case of an offense resulting in bodily injury to a victim” the defendant may be responsible for “the cost of necessary mediсal and related professional services and devices relating to physical, psychiatric, and psychological care” and “income lost by such victim as a result of such offense.” The statute does not include a definition of “bodily injury.” On the one hand, it may be argued that the term “bodily injury” would be redundant if it included “physical, psychiatric, and psychological care.” This argument is reinforced by Black‘s Law Dictionary‘s definition of the term: “Physical damage to a person‘s body.” Black‘s Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009). On the other hand, one might argue that “bodily injury” is an umbrella term that includes “physical, psychiatric, and psychological care.” (suggesting that “perhaps ‘bodily injury’ is a holistic phrase referring to all aspects of thе body, physical and psychological“). These alternate plausible readings of the statute reveal its ambiguity.

Further undermining Breshers‘s position is the fact that other federal statutes include mental injury in the definition of bodily injury. 18 U.S.C. § 1365(g)(1)(B)(3) (defining “bodily injury” as including “impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty“); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.1, comment. (j) ‍​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​​​‌​​‌​‌‌​‌​​​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‍(defining “serious bodily injury” as including impairment of a “function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty“). The Hate Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 249, adopts the definition of “bodily injury” found in 18 U.S.C. § 1365(g)(1)(B)(3), but specifies that it “does not include solely emotional оr psychological harm to the victim.” These statutes suggest that the MVRA‘s use of the undefined term “bodily injury” is at best unclear on the question whether it includes mental injury.

Breshers is correct to point out that the other circuits have held that physical injuries arе required before the court may order restitution for mental treatment. (“[W]e hold that the MVRA requires evidence of bodily injury to victims before restitution can be ordered for their psychological treatment expenses.“); (“The cost of psyсhological counseling can be included in a restitution order only when the victim has suffered physical injury.“). Neither of these cases, however, was decided on plain error review. We conclude that the district court in the case before us did not plainly err in ordering restitution for T.A. and The Hartford.

B

The government argues in the alternative that the MVRA authorizes reimbursement for lost income and “other expenses” under subsection (b)(4). This subsection authorizes reimbursement where the expenses are “incurred during participation in the investigation or prosecution of the offense or attendance at proceedings related to the offense.” 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(b)(4). Breshers counters that there are no facts in the record supporting the clаim that the income losses and mental health treatment costs were incurred because of the victims’ participation ‍​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​​​‌​​‌​‌‌​‌​​​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‍in the investigation or prosecution. Breshers‘s response underscores our previous comment on the reason for plain error review. We need not reach this issue because we affirm on § 3663A(b)(2) grounds.

III

We AFFIRM the district court‘s restitution order awarding T.A. $3,225 and The Hartford $40,289.50.

Read the detailed case summary