Filed: Mar. 18, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 13-4230 _ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. ROLAND G. MURRELL Appellant _ On Appeal from the District Court of the Virgin Islands (D.C. Criminal No. 3-13-cr-00010-001) District Judge: Honorable Curtis V. Gomez _ Argued May 18, 2015 Before: McKEE, Chief Judge, SMITH and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges (Opinion Filed: March 18, 2016) _ OPINION _ Argued for Appellee Argued for Appellant Nelson L. Jones, Esq. Clive Rivers Office of Unite
Summary: NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 13-4230 _ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. ROLAND G. MURRELL Appellant _ On Appeal from the District Court of the Virgin Islands (D.C. Criminal No. 3-13-cr-00010-001) District Judge: Honorable Curtis V. Gomez _ Argued May 18, 2015 Before: McKEE, Chief Judge, SMITH and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges (Opinion Filed: March 18, 2016) _ OPINION _ Argued for Appellee Argued for Appellant Nelson L. Jones, Esq. Clive Rivers Office of United..
More
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
____________
No. 13-4230
____________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
ROLAND G. MURRELL
Appellant
_______________
On Appeal from the
District Court of the Virgin Islands
(D.C. Criminal No. 3-13-cr-00010-001)
District Judge: Honorable Curtis V. Gomez
______________
Argued May 18, 2015
Before: McKEE, Chief Judge, SMITH and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges
(Opinion Filed: March 18, 2016)
__________
OPINION
__________
Argued for Appellee Argued for Appellant
Nelson L. Jones, Esq. Clive Rivers
Office of United States Attorney 8000 Nisky Shopping Center
5500 Veterans Building, Suite 260 Suite 233
United States Courthouse St. Thomas, VI 00802
St. Thomas, VI 00802
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding
precedent.
McKEE, Chief Judge.
Roland Murrell appeals his convictions on nine counts of an indictment charging
him with numerous offenses. He raises two issues on appeal. He argues that certain
evidence was admitted in violation of the Bruton rule, and that absent that testimony, the
evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction. He also argues that the district court
erred in imposing consecutive sentences. For the reasons provided below, we will
affirm.1
I.
Because we write primarily for the parties, who are familiar with this case, we
need not discuss the procedural or factual history.2
Murrell argues that but for the introduction of a statement that violated the rule of
Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968), no reasonable juror could have been
convinced of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Bruton prohibits the introduction at
trial of a prior statement of a non-testifying codefendant. Here, King testified and was
subjected to cross examination. The statement was also redacted, and the court gave an
appropriate limiting instruction. We realize that King did not testify until after the
Government had rested and the court had denied Murrell’s motion under Rule 29. At that
1
We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
2
Our review of the sufficiency of the evidence is highly deferential. The verdict must be upheld if “after viewing
the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential
elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. McGee,
763 F.3d 304, 316 (3d Cir. 2014)
(quoting Jackson v. Virginia,
443 U.S. 307, 319,
99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789,
61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979) (emphasis in
original)). Since Murrell did not object to the sentence, we review the imposition of sentences for plain error.
United States v. Couch,
291 F.3d 251, 252–53 (3d Cir. 2002).
2
point, Murrell had not been able to cross examine King and Bruton applied. However,
we will not now decide if the district court’s consideration of King’s redacted statement
in the Government’s case-in-chief violated the rule of Bruton because Murrell did not
raise that issue prior to the Rule 29 ruling. He also has not made that argument on
appeal. Accordingly, the argument would have to rise to the level of plain error before
Murrell’s Bruton claim would justify relief. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135,
129 S. Ct. 1423, 1428–29,
173 L. Ed. 2d 266 (2009). That high standard requires that
Murrell establish there was an error, that was plain, and that affected his substantial
rights. United States v. Olano,
507 U.S. 725, 732, (1993). The quantum of evidence
against Murrell here prevents him from satisfying that burden.
The Government presented video evidence that showed Murrell inside the House
of Rajah taking Leayle, Sr.’s jewelry out of his pocket and attempting to sell it. The
evidence showed that this occurred within hours of the robbery and the shooting of
Leayle, Sr. There was testimony from the clerks at Vishnu Jewelers and manager at
House of Rajah explaining how Murrell behaved when attempting to sell the gold chain
and bracelet. Murrell tried to use a fake name when asked for ID by the clerk. King sat
on the side at both stores observing Murrell. Finally, Murrell was observed in the bank
cashing the check the manager of the House of Rajah gave to King.
Thus, even if we assumed arguendo that a Bruton violation occurred prior to the
court’s denial of Murrell’s Rule 29 motion, Murrell would still not have established plain
3
error based on any Bruton violation.3 Thereafter, King was called as a witness and
Murrell had an opportunity to cross examine him. Thus, any issues that may otherwise
have arisen under Bruton disappeared before the end of trial.4
II.
Murrell also challenges the district court’s decision to impose consecutive
sentences. He was convicted of five substantive crimes under the Virgin Islands Code.5
He was separately convicted of firearm crimes under the Virgin Islands Code for the use
of a firearm in “the commission or attempted commission of a crime of violence.” 14
V.I.C. § 2253(a).6 He was sentenced to fifteen years for violation of the substantive
crimes, and fifteen years for violation of the firearm crimes – both sentences to run
consecutively.
The decision to have the sentences run consecutively, rather than concurrently,
was clearly within the district court’s discretion. See 14 V.I.C. § 2253(a) (“The foregoing
applicable penalties provided for the violation of this section shall be in addition to the
penalty provided for the commission of, or attempt to commit, the felony or crime of
violence.”) (emphasis added). In Government of Virgin Islands v. Douglas, we held that
3
As we explained in United States v. Goodson, 544 F.3d 529, 540 (3d Cir. 2008), relief under the plain error
doctrine is discretionary and should only be granted when the record establishes that a miscarriage of justice would
otherwise result. See also Fed. R. Crim P. 52(b). Clearly, no such miscarriage of justice is established on this record.
4
We take no position on whether King’s testimony and the concomitant opportunity for Murrell to cross examine
him negated the existence of a Bruton issue when the court denied Murrell’s Rule 29 motion. We also take no
position on whether Bruton required the district court to rule on Murrell’s Rule 29 motion without considering
King’s redacted statement.
5
Aiding and Abetting Attempted Murder in violation of 14 V.I.C. §§ 921, 922(a)(1), 331, and 11(a); Aiding and
Abetting First Degree Assault in violation of 14 V.I.C. §§ 295(1) and 11(a); Intent to Commit Robbery in violation
of 14 V.I.C. §§ 295(3) and 11(a); Aiding and Abetting Robbery in violation of 14 V.I.C. §§ 1861, 1862(1), and
11(a); Conspiracy to Commit Robbery in violation of 14 V.I.C. §§ 551(1) and 552.
6
Use of a Firearm During the Commission of: (1) an Attempted Murder, (2) a First Degree Assault, and (3) a
Robbery in violation of 14 V.I.C. § 2253(a).
4
the “in addition to” language of an analogous subchapter to § 2253(a) “is consistent with
both an intent to mandate consecutive sentences and an intent to allow the sentencing
judge to exercise his or her discretion in selecting between consecutive and concurrent
sentences.” 812 F.2d 822, 833 (3d Cir. 1987) (interpreting 14 V.I.C. § 2251(a)(2)(B)).
Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing consecutive
sentences.
III.
For the reasons expressed above, we will affirm the district court.
5
