United States v. Peoples

Citation: 6 F. App'x 386Docket: No. 00-1106

Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; April 11, 2001; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Robin Peoples was convicted by a federal jury on twelve counts related to four bank robberies, during which he allegedly used a Tech-9 assault weapon and set fire to stolen vehicles. Despite his co-defendants pleading guilty, Peoples opted for a trial, denying his involvement. The jury found him guilty, leading to a sentence of 1,329 months’ imprisonment. He subsequently filed for new counsel and a new trial, claiming newly discovered evidence of his innocence and ineffective assistance of counsel, both of which the district court denied.

On appeal, Peoples argues that the district court constructively amended the indictment regarding firearms charges under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), suggesting the jury may have convicted him based on evidence of a BB gun rather than the Tech-9 specified in the indictment. He also alleges that improper remarks by the prosecutor infringed on his right not to testify, and he seeks a new trial based on newly discovered evidence and ineffective trial counsel. Additionally, he claims his sentence violates the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment and the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

The appellate court notes that because Peoples did not raise the constructive amendment issue in the trial court, it will be reviewed only for plain error, which requires a significant impact on the fairness of the judicial process. The court finds no merit in Peoples' argument that the jury could have relied on the BB gun evidence for conviction, affirming his conviction and sentence.

Peoples was convicted on four counts of using or carrying a firearm during robberies, having stipulated that a Tech-9 was brandished in each instance. Despite his claims of not using a weapon, his co-defendant testified that he wielded the Tech-9, substantiating the prosecution's case. The court found no significant error in the prosecutor's reference to a second gun, as the jury was properly instructed on the requirement to prove that Peoples knowingly used or carried a firearm, and they had a copy of the indictment identifying the Tech-9. Peoples also contended that the prosecutor's rebuttal remarks suggested a failure to present evidence, but the court noted that the prosecutor's comments were in response to defense arguments and did not constitute plain error. Furthermore, Peoples' claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was dismissed by the district court, which found insufficient evidence to support his allegations that his attorney was under the influence of alcohol or failed to follow his directives during the trial. The court's opinion emphasized that it gave little weight to his claims of inadequate representation.

Peoples failed to identify any fundamental flaws in the district court's analysis, which the reviewing court found to be correct. The court agreed with the district court that there was no evidence of ineffective assistance of trial counsel or actual prejudice affecting Peoples’s defense, thus affirming the denial of his motion for a new trial.

Peoples argued that newly discovered evidence, consisting of affidavits from jail inmates claiming his co-defendants did not mention his involvement in the robberies and suggested they were falsely implicating him, warranted a new trial. The district court dismissed this claim, finding the statements cumulative and insufficient to change the verdict, noting that similar testimony had already been presented during his defense.

Peoples challenged his lengthy sentence of 1,329 months based on the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, arguing it exceeded his life expectancy. However, the court reiterated that long sentences do not violate this amendment if they are based on proper guidelines and statutory mandates. The court found no Eighth Amendment violation.

Regarding the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, Peoples contended he was punished twice for the same conduct due to the enhancement of his sentence for using firearms in the robberies. The court rejected this argument, citing previous rulings that support separate punishments under different statutes do not constitute double jeopardy.

The judgment of the district court was affirmed, but the case was remanded to correct a clerical error in the judgment regarding the sentencing range. Peoples’s convictions included multiple counts of armed bank robbery, using firearms during a crime of violence, and related offenses, with both parties agreeing on the total sentence of 1,329 months, which the district court may correct on remand under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(a).