United States v. Timothy A. Gayles, Also Known as Timothy Moore, Also Known as Charles Lee Moore

Cir.1989). Hеre, initially that Wat- determined District Court charges nature of the understood the

son right validly had waived his

against him and progressed, howev- As the case

to counsel.

er, by the nu- the court became convinced he did filed that

merous documents Watson charges and could not

not understand competently. Having

represent himself conclusion, the District Court

reached appointing

did not abuse its discretion represent

counsel to Watson

expense. also contends that the Dis

Watson rights by violated his

trict Court “incarcerat

ing” competency him for a mental examina merit as well. The

tion. This claim lacks competency exam

District Court ordered motion pursuant

ination to defense counsel’s (1988), provides which

and 18 U.S.C. examinations,

for such after Watson refused appear failed to

to assist counsel and reject argument Finally,

trial. Watson’s

that, Judge pre Waters continued to him in

side in this case after Watson sued court, pro was denied his due

state Watson right impartial judge. “A

cess to an by litigant’s threat disqualified suit ‍‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌​​​‍or against him.” ened suit (9th Cir.1986); see

Studley, 783 F.2d Edwards, Griffith Cir.) curiam), L.Ed.2d

Accordingly, we affirm. America, Appellee, STATES of

UNITED

Timothy GAYLES, A. also known Timothy Moore, as also known Moore, Appellant.

Charles Lee

No. 92-3104. Appeals,

United States Court

Eighth Circuit. March 1993.

Submitted Aug.

Decided Erlinder, Paul, MN, argued

C. Peter St. appellant. for Lancaster, Atty., Joan Ericksen Asst. U.S. MN, Minneapolis, argued, appellee. for FAGG, Judge, LAY Before Circuit HEANEY, Judges. Senior Circuit FAGG, Judge. Circuit Timothy Gayles appeals A. his conviction Maureen and sentence 1991. See 18 U.S.C. October conviction, We affirm but resentencing. remand one-day relation- dure 25. moved for a contin- from the abusive This case arises couple original judge Gayles and Shook. uance to see would re- ship between together. children in 1984 and had two cover and return. The new denied met relationship, of their During the course motion for a continuance because he and she obtained restrain- beat was satisfied got help at a bat- ing orders. After Shook day. judge to return The new able within time, for the fourth tered shelter women’s denied mоtion for a mistrial. also relationship off her with she decided to break later, days testimony juryA Two ended. Gayles’s tele- Gayles. refused to take Shook Gayles guilty kidnaping. found of Because up apartment so and her phone calls boarded Gayles was a career offender under the sen- Nevertheless, Gayles in. he could not break tencing guidelines, guidelines minimum the grocery store inside сonfronted Shook thirty years’ imprisonment. sentence was shopping with her roommate she was while imposed The district court the minimum sen- Gayles younger son. talked with Shook and days Gayles sentencing, tence. A few after approached then left the store. When Shook Gayles and married. moved for a new Shook lot, however, Gayles parking in the her car alleged trial based on Shook’s recantation of by her neck up grabbed to her and her ran testimony. Finding her trial the information keys threw her car to her and hair. Shook contained in Shook’s affidavits probably roommate, keys Gayles retrieved the and but acquittal would not result an on a new her car. Their child was pushed Shook into trial, the motion the denied Gayles punched Shook in the back seat. Gayles’s request for a on the and face, times, back of hitting her the several motion. head, lips, nose. blow knocked and One Gayles asserts glasses her face and bent them. off Shook’s its discretion in his motion abused parking He told Gayles sped out of the lot. trial, a new based on Shook’s “recantation put her going he to hit her and Shook was testimony regarding of her the involuntari hospital. Gayles also stated he was into the [Gayles] her with on the ness of association taking Chicago going and he to her to day alleged kidnapping.” of the See kill In an effort to intimidate himself. (8th McCabe, States Shook, Gayles story her a about a man told (victim’s Cir.) a fundamen lack of consent is he was who had killed his child because denied, kidnaping), tal element of cert. angry Gayles stop with his wife. did (1987). 832, 108 S.Ct. U.S. L.Ed.2d they line into car until crossed the state A triаl based on recanted motion for new Gayles stopped gas at a then Wisconsin. if, testimony granted among other should to clean the blood off station and told Shook probably things, pro the recantation stopped grocery later at a her face. He acquittal on a new trial. United duce and, leaving in the car leery of Shook store (8th Provost, 164 — States alone, saw sev- tоok her inside. Once Shook Cir.1990) denied, curiam), cert. store, employees inside the she eral male (1991); -, try escape. ran down the decided She Erickson, screaming help, with in hot aisles Lewis v. 1991). Cir. pursuit. According employees, to store she employees The tried to looked terrified. the content of mischaracterizes got stop Gayles, he eluded them and but she does not state Shook’s аffidavits. Shook away in car. Shook’s willingly to Wisconsin and went with testimony trial about does not contradict her trial, During days the first two of the Instead, in her happened. what Shook states testimony jury heard the and two that she does not believe the first affidavit who saw the initial witnesses about at trial establish a events she testified Between the second and third abduction. Gayles’s sen- trial, kidnaping and that she thinks days judge became ill. Another subjective long. beliefs proceed- tence is too Shook’s judge himself with the familiarized charge appropriateness of the ings proceed about the and stated his intent to with sentence, however, are irrelevant. Shook trial under Rule of Proce- Federal Criminal supplementary proceed jury affidavit that after unable to after a states trial started, go wanted to back to judge may proceed she told she has another Minnesota, By Gayles agreed to return. and finish the trial certifies time, however, Gayles already had taken familiarity record. Fed.R.Crim.P. consent, 26(a). without her view, into Wisconsin plain In our language thus, already complete. crime was permits Rule 25 the substitution in this case. supplementary affi- Sisk, Shook also states never held her for ransom. davit that Ransom, however, requirement is not a 66 L.Ed.2d 809 statute, see U.S.C. seriously trial became ill and (1988)(unlawfully person seized must ‍‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌​​​‍be held would not be able to return to the courtroom otherwise”), “for ransom or reward or following a reasonable continuance. The new Gayles charged holding with was not Shook judge familiarity certified his with the rec McCabe, 812 F.2d at 1062- ransom. See ord, way poten and went оut of his to avoid (Congress 63 added “or otherwise” to extend problems might tial that arise because of the persons any the statute to held “for other substitution. Even if the substitution were reason”). short, jury properly was erroneous, it would be harmless because charge nothing instructed about the and in Gayles does not assert how the substitution posttrial submissions casts doubt on the prejudiced Gayles him. appеals no eviden- jury’s finding Gayles against that took Shook decisions, tiary original judge, who her will from Minnesota to Wisconsin for his testimony, heard Gayles’s Shook’s ruled on Thus, purposes. own the information in motion for a new trial based on Shook’s probably pro- Shook’s affidavits would not alleged recantation. acquittal duce an on a new trial. Next, Gayles right asserts his to be Even if Shook had said she consented to present stages at all of his trial was violated go Gayles, to Wisconsin with disinterested jury when the was selected in his absence witnesses testified about Shook’s abduction from the during courtroom a lunch recess. by Gayles grocery from the store in Minneso- 43(a). disagree. Fed.R.Crim.P. We ta, trying escape her terror Gayles present in was the courtroom while store, Thus, Wisconsin and her bruised face. potential jurors questioned. Al a statement that voluntarily she though Gayles was absent later when his went to in- Wisconsin would be attorney made his strikes over the lunch independent consistent with the evidence in hour, jury the cover of the voir dire tran this case. script present shows was the court disagree Gayles’s We assertion gave room when the clerk the strikes effect that the district court abused its discretion in by reading jurors off the list of who had not hearing him a on his trial new mo present been stricken. any does not A tion. new trial motion based on recanted contrary. affidavit to controlling Under testimony usually can be decided without precedent, Gayles sufficiently present Provost, hearing. United States v. jury’s impaneling satisfy Rule 43 and — (8th 617, Cir.1992), denied, 619 cert. U.S. Chrisco, the Constitution. United States v.

-, 986, (1993). 122 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 139 (8th 232, Cir.), denied, 236-37 cert. judge who decided new trial 847, 84, 95 S.Ct. 42 L.Ed.2d 77 at.trial, thus, testify motion heard Shook (1974). judge not did abuse his discretion in declining hearing. to conduct a Id. at 619- right contends his to a fair prejudiced juror trial was awhen saw him in Gayles also shackles an contends the district area near the courtroom dur granted ing jury court should have his motion for a deliberations and the district court ‘ mistrial became ill held no impact. to determine the during the trial and another by explicitly was sub forfeited this issue re If stituted. a trial jecting becomes sick and is the district court’s invitation to move hearing. may depart lack A district court or a We thus for a mistrial under ground § unless to reverse on this 4A1.3 if discretion even the defendant is a career mistake § court made obvious the district offender under 4B1.1. Id. at 545. In de Gayles. States v. prejudiced that ciding departure § whether a under —Olano, U.S. -, —-—, 113 S.Ct. justified, a district court considers the histor (1993); 1770, 1776-78, Fed. 123 L.Ed.2d ical facts of the defendant’s criminal career. 52(b). do not believe the dis R.Crim.P. We Senior, United States trict court committed an obvious mistake. (8th Cir.1991); Smith, see United States v. Further, juror’s view of a defendant Cir.1990), cert. brief, inadvertent, custody is and outside denied, U.S. courtroom, prejudice to the defendant is (1991); 4A1.3(a)-(e). U.S.S.G. Fahnbidleh, slight. Gayles’s sentencing At hearing, the acknowledge cоurt did power its to de- 86 L.Ed.2d 702 part applicable from guidelines range Even we believed the district U.S.S.G. 4A1.3 or address prejudiced an obvious made mistake argument Gayles, ‍‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌​​​‍we would not exercise our remedial under this section. given Gayles’s oversight discretion to correct the error The district entirely court’s un- a affirmative decision not to move for mistri Gayles only derstandable because raised thе hearing al or in the district court. See Ola § obliquely 4A1.3 issue in a written “Position —no, at -, Respect Sentencing” to filed with the Valencia-Lucena, 1778-79; court ten minutes before sentencing (1st Cir.1991). hearing begin. Gayles was scheduled to ar- gued at the depar- for a sentence, Challenging his as case, ture based on the unusual facts of the serts the district court abused its discretion argue departure but did not for a bаsed on in depar his motion for a downward § 4A1.3. Because the district court did not applicable guidelines range. ture from the seeking departure realize a under Specifically, Gayles contends the district 4A1.3, § we believe we should remand this departed court should have downward be give opportunity case to the district court an history category exagger cause his criminal to cоnsider whether a downward gravity ates the of his earlier criminal activi Brown, § appropriate. § ties. See U.S.S.G. 4A1.3. The district 903 F.2d at 545. assigned Gayles court the criminal offenders, category for career see id. parties After the filed their briefs 4B1.1, § relying Gayles’s on 1979 conviction addenda, moved to Government robbery for armed and related crimes com part Gayles’s (containing strike addendum during episode mitted the same criminal newspaper about interview old, years when he was 21 and a recent state case) underlying parts events and the drug conviction for which he served than less Gayles’s referring briefs to information con prison. Gayles’s six in months Most of other reviewing in tained the interview. When skirmishes with the law misdemeanor motion, denial of a new trial we do not con offenses. original outside the sidеr affidavits district Menard, court record. United States v. 4A1.3, the dis Under U.S.S.G. (8th Cir.1991) curiam). may depart trict court from an Here, published the article was after the applicable sentencing range otherwise Gayles’s court denied new trial mo reliable information shows the defendant’s part tion and thus is not of the district history category significantly over- addition, did not swear to record. represents the of the defendant’s seriousness Accordingly, grant the information. past criminal conduct. United States Cir.1990). Brown, motions to strike. 544-45 Government’s conviction, ruined, but vacate life We affirm His is his wife and two children directly imprisonment. are affected resentencing. and remand for his his sentence public pursue total cost to the to imprisonment interminable will amount to LAY, Judge, concurring. Circuit Senior approximately one million dollars.2 judgment respectfully I concur Gayles’s 30-year Much of sentence is at- majority. separately concerning I write judge’s tributable to the trial decision thirty-year sentence the defendant has classify Gayles as a career offender.3 With- received. designation, out the career offender Guidelines recommend a sentence of between This a state domestic abuse case 100 and -roughly 20-year re- prosecutor federal turned into a federal kid- months— duction sentence. The Guidelines define a napping charge distraught because a career offender as a defendant with at least abusive husband crossed state lines with his prior felony involving two convictions either a wife and mother his two children. The crime drug of violence or a offense.4 cоuple evidence that after the shows crossed 4B1.1. U.S.S.G. concedes he had Wisconsin, from border Minnesota to two such burglary offenses: and un- persuaded wife the defendant to vol- lawful restraint conviction for a crime com- untarily drive her back to Minnesota.1 mitted when was 21 old and a thirty years prison now faces drug more recent state conviction for which essentially physically abusing yeаr jail. his wife. he served less than one kidnapping Gayles’s physical 1. The fundamental issue in a federal abuse of his wife is not to be alleged case is whether the victim consented According condoned. to the Minnesota Sentenc- being transported Guidelines, across state lines. United ing if he were convicted of first de- Toledo, assault, States gree kidnapping great bodily sexual (U.S. 7, petition filеd, July harm, (his degree first assault crime does not 1993) (No. 93-5151); Chancey, United States v. offenses) necessarily fit these he would have an 543, (11th Cir.1983). The Su severity offense level of VIII. His criminal histo- preme States, made Court clear in Chatwin v. United ry score would be 6 or more. On the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Grid these numbers 233, 326 U.S. 90 L.Ed. 198 (1946), very that "the essence of the crime of give presumptive a him sentence of be- kidnapping" is “the involuntariness of seizure tween 153 and 163 months. His federal sen- and detention.” Id. at 66 S.Ct. at 237. The tence is 360 months. Court stated: against policy relating The statute was 3. Section drawn in 1932 statement background organized Kidnaping Adequacy History of Category. violence. the of Criminal It by epidemic that time had become following in the includes the statement: United States.... “Law enforcement authori- may There be cases whеre the court concludes ties, coordination, lacking sys- with no uniform history that a category defendant's criminal tem of intercommunication and restricted in significantly over-represents the seriousness of authority jurisdiction, to activities in their own history a defendant's criminal or the likelihood laughed by found themselves criminals that the defendant will commit further crimes. by bound no such inhibitions or restrictions example might An include the case aof defen- procedure simple ... The was man would —a dant two minor misdemeanor convictions kidnapped be in one State and whisked into years prior close ‍‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌​​​‍to ten to the instant offense another, another, captors knowing and still his prior and no other evidence of criminal behav- police full jurisdiction well that the intervening period. ior in may The сourt where the crime was committed had no au- history conclude that the defendant's criminal thority as far as the State of confinement and significantly was less serious than that of most concealment was concerned.” defendants in the same criminal cate- stamping It was to assist the states in out II), gory (Category growing therefore consider a this and sinister menace of guidelines. form the Kidnaрing that designed. the Federal Act was proponents recognized Its that where victims 4. The transported Guidelines also state that the only defendant across state lines age must be at power disregard federal least 18 at the time had the of the offense; addition, pursuing captors. such current barriers in the current offense Chatwin, 462-63, felony 326 U.S. at must 66 S.Ct. at 236-37 conviction for a crime of vio- (citations omittеd). drug lence aor offense. U.S.S.G. 4B1.1. crimes states, nev- ment of the seriousness Senior’s majority the trial court As the arguments by handling reflected the state courts’ considered er overrepresents length criminal status time career Senior history.5 I write of his criminal seriousness actually predi- second served.” Id. opinions emphasize prior our separately to drug offense. He cate offense also was judges may depart down- that trial that hold jail year than one on this served less criminal cases because ward career charge. too reflects the seriousness This possibility of clearly allow for the “guidelines of Minnesota treated with which the State conduct is departure where the defendant’s many Although has had this offense. history score.” exaggerated by the criminal law, most were other skirmishes with Brown, States v. qualify that do not misdemeanor offenses (8th Cir.1990). 4B1.1; him aas career criminal. U.S.S.G. Hester, United States v. Senior, In United States (8th Cir.1990). (8th Cir.1991), approved a downward de we on circum parture section 4A1.3 based discussion, join I On the basis of the above remarkably similar to stances that are for the in the remand to vacate the sentence Smith, also United States case. See trial court to reconsider defendant’s sentence (8th Cir.1990), cert. de under section 4A1.3 of Federal Sentenc- nied, ing Guidelines. Senior, observed In only 27-year-old defendant was that the then his first years old when he committed of robberies.

predicate offenses —a series Here, Gayles

935 F.2d at 150-51. burglary that he committed the became predicate offense his

history designation. Gayles is now 35.

Senior, relied the short sentence we also on predi defendant received for his second drug charges for which he

cate offense — six-year eighteen of a

served about months being paroled. Id. We said

sentence before

this sentence revealed “the state’s assess- departure. The relating further addressed of the confusion to the defen-

5. Some argued sta- that the career criminal objections overstatement of his submission dant’s to the Gayles’ Mr. criminal offender status arises because of tus “overstates the seriousness of counsel, standard, any history” ”[b]y James withdrawal defendant’s Ostgard, apрointment replacement past Gayles' and the Mr. convictions over counsel, Before Erlinder entered Peter Erlinder. of the nature that should result have not been sentencing hearing, and well before the the case status.” Career Criminal pretrial Ostgard objected proposed however, to the sen- argu- judge, treated the The trial by report Office. tence submitted the Probation history as a of criminal ments on overstatement specifically objection addressed In that counsel 30-year challenge sentence under to the the overstatement and use of the career offender Eighth to the U.S. Constitution. Amendment recognized probation the ob- The officer status. Eighth ‍‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌​​​‍analyses quite different. The two are jection relating the defen- to the overstatement of analysis cited the trial Amendment responded: dant’s criminal to the crime looks at the sentence relation observed, correctly permits, the trial contained in this section The information only whether the a “narrow review to determine report evaluate the assists the Court to disproportionate grossly to the sentence history category adequacy the criminal looks the Guidelines crime.” Section 4A1.3 of past reflecting of the offender's the seriousness history to deter- only defendant's criminal to the determining whether a criminal behavior and in underrepresents significantly mine if the score departure may he warranted. likeli- added). overrepresents record and attorney the defendant’s (Emphasis second recidivism; weigh- it does not involve position hood of paper 10 minutes before submitted a ing crime. of sentence and commencement of

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. Timothy A. Gayles, Also Known as Timothy Moore, Also Known as Charles Lee Moore

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Date Published: Aug 25, 1993

Citation: 1 F.3d 735

Docket Number: 92-3104

Court Abbreviation: 8th Cir.