In U.S. v. Dowd, No. 05-15067 (June 13, 2006), the Court affirmed a 305-month sentence on a defendant convicted of robbing a postmater and placing his life in jeopardy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2114(a), use of a firearm in the commission of a crime of violence, in violation of § 924(c), unlawful conversion of money orders, in violation of § 500, and felony possession of a firearm, in violation of § 922(g)(1).
The Court rejected Dowd’s argument that the felon in possession count should have severed from his trial for the robbery of the post office, because the possession predated the robbery by several days. The Court noted that no compelling prejudice arose from the joinder, because the jury would have heard all of the firearms-related evidence anyway, because it contradicted Dowd’s primary defense that he used only a toy gun in the robbery. Moreover, the proof of Dowd’s guilt in the robbery was extensive and overwhelming.
The Court also rejected Dowd’s challenge to the admission of his confession. Although Dowd did not sign the Miranda waiver, he signed the portion of the form expressing that he understood his Miranda rights and he thereafter expressed his willingness to speak to investigators. Dowd did not even equivocally suggest that he wished to cease questioning.
The Court rejected Dowd’s Double Jeopardy challenge to being punished twice for use of a firearm, once for the robbery at gunpoint of the post office, and again for use of a firearm. The Court noted that Congress specifically intended consecutive punishment in this instance. Even though the offenses involve the same elements, this did not change the Double Jeopardy analysis because there was clear legislative intent to impose cumulative punishments.
The Court rejected Dowd’challenge to his sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act. The district court relied on the transcripts of plea colloquys in Dowd’ prior State convictions as the basis for concluding that his prior burglaries qualified as predicate violent felonies under ACCA. This was in keeping with Shepard v. U.S., 544 U.S. 12 (2005).
The Court also found no error in the substitution of judges after trial, for sentencing, pointing out that the sentencing judge was sufficiently familiar with Dowd’s trial to sentence him.
Finally, the Court rejected Dowd’s reasonableness challenge to his 305-month sentence. "While it is true that Dowd is over 65 years old, it is also undeniable that Dowd committed a violent felony at that age."
