Criminal Law

Defendant alleged in instant appeal that govt. breached plea agreement by expressing specific sentence recommendation in response to defense counsel’s argument during sentencing hearing. Ct., though, found that defendant waived any error by agreeing to proceed with sentencing hearing after Dist. Ct. had continued sentencing hearing to allow defendant opportunity to consider how to proceed after prosecutor indicated that defendant should not be placed on probation. Moreover, defendant decided to continue with sentencing hearing without moving to withdraw her plea or asking that different judge preside over sentencing hearing.

In prosecution on bank robbery and firearm charge, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized from defendant at arrest scene even though defendant argued that police lacked probable cause to arrest him when police approached him on street after receiving report that three individuals with physical descriptions and clothing that matched defendant and two others in same vehicle had recently robbed bank. Police had reasonable suspicion to make investigatory stop of defendant based on report, and record showed that defendant was detained only 10 minutes until another officer arrived with photographs of bank robbery culprits, which in turn gave police probable cause to arrest defendant. Fact that defendant had been placed in handcuffs during instant 10-minute period did not transform investigatory stop into full-blown arrest. Dist. Ct also did not err in admitting expert testimony regarding shoe-prints left at scene of robbery that linked defendant to crime, even though defendant had argued that expert’s footwear analysis lacked reliable scientific facts, data and methodology.

Record contained sufficient evidence to support defendant's conviction on aggravated identity theft charge under 18 USC section 1028A(a)(1) arising out of defendant's production of fake handgun permit that contained customer's own identifying information, which customer than used in attempt to purchase firearm. While defendant argued that he could not be convicted of said offense where fraudulent document contained customer's own identifying information, defendant's conduct fell within section 1028A(a)(1) since his conduct entailed unlawful transfer of another person's identification information on false document. Record, though, did not support defendant's conviction for unlawful production of false identification document arising out of defendant's possession of six documents purporting to be Indiana driver's licenses where said documents were so crudely made that no reasonable person would think that said documents were genuine.

In prosecution on drug conspiracy charges stemming from sting carried out by ATF officials in which ATF agent planned with defendant and others to rob non-existence drug stash-house, Dist. Ct. did not err in granting govt. motion in limine to preclude defendant from presenting entrapment defense. Govt. proffered evidence that defendant had criminal reputation that included several prior convictions, and defendant otherwise disclosed prior history of participating in stash-house robberies. Moreover, while defendant claimed that ATF agent pressured him to participate in planning for stash-house robbery by displaying gang tattoo, defendant failed to show how such display forced him to commit crime he was not pre-disposed to commit. Fact that agent initiated contact with defendant and repeated solicitation to rob stash-house did not entitle defendant to entrapment defense. (Partial dissent filed.)