USA v. Leon Papillion, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [09-31023 Affirmed ] Judge: EHJ , Judge: TMR , Judge: CH Mandate pull date is 11/16/2010 for Appellant Leon Papillion Jr. [09-31023]

USA v. Leon Papillion,ase: 09-31023 C Jr.

Document: 00511275132 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/26/2010

Doc. 0

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
October 26, 2010 N o . 09-31023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

U N IT E D STATES OF AMERICA, P la in t if f -A p p e lle e v. L E O N PAPILLION, JR., also known as Wood, D e fe n d a n t -A p p e lla n t

A p p e a l from the United States District Court fo r the Western District of Louisiana U S D C No. 6:07-CR-20052-4

B e fo r e JONES, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* L e o n Papillion, Jr., appeals his conviction after a jury trial for conspiracy t o possess with intent to distribute controlled substances and attempt to possess w it h intent to distribute Methylenedioxy Amphetamine (Ecstasy). He challenges t h e sufficiency of the evidence. We AFFIRM. B e c a u s e Papillion preserved his sufficiency of the evidence argument in t h e district court, we review it de novo. See United States v. Williams, 602 F.3d 3 1 3 , 315 (5th Cir. 2010). "In deciding whether the evidence was sufficient, we
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
*

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 09-31023 Document: 00511275132 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/26/2010

No. 09-31023 r e v ie w all evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine w h e t h e r a rational trier of fact could have found that the evidence established t h e essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. (internal q u o t a t io n marks and citation omitted). T o prove a conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance, the Government w a s required to establish: (1) the existence of an agreement between two or more p e r s o n s to violate the narcotics laws; (2) the defendant's knowledge of the a g r e e m e n t; and (3) the defendant's voluntary participation in the conspiracy. See United States v. Valdez, 453 F.3d 252, 256­57 (5th Cir. 2006). In order to p r o v e attempt to possess Ecstasy with intent to distribute, the Government was r e q u ir e d to prove that the defendant engaged in conduct constituting a s u b s t a n t ia l step toward completing the crime. United States v. ArmendarizM a ta , 949 F.2d 151, 154 (5th Cir. 1991). T h e Government charged that Papillion and several others, organized and le d by co-defendant Loveless Bell, conspired to possess various controlled s u b s t a n c e s and attempted to possess Ecstasy by participating in several home in v a s io n s of drug dealers. One such home invasion occurred on July 22, 2004, a t the home of Jonathan Brown, a known drug dealer, and his girlfriend Allison G r a n g e r . Brown and Granger testified that several men wearing masks and g lo v e s entered their home demanding the "stuff," "drugs," and "weed." The v ic t im s were previously acquainted with Papillion, and Brown called out P a p il lio n 's name during the robbery. An investigating officer testified that B r o w n said he recognized Papillion because of the muscles in the back of his n e c k and the pigment of the skin on Papillion's hands. Granger testified that h a v in g seen the perpetrator's movements and heard his voice that she believed it was Papillion. Although they initially told police that they could not identify t h e perpetrators, Brown and Granger later picked out Papillion from a photo

2

Case: 09-31023 Document: 00511275132 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/26/2010

No. 09-31023 a r r a y as one of the robbers and testified that they were sure Papillion was in v o lv e d . A n o t h e r home invasion occurred on August 6, 2004, at the home of Derrick M a y e a u x , who was Bell's partner in dealing Ecstasy. Bell testified that he i n s t r u c t e d Papillion and another individual to break into the home to "take e v e r y t h in g ." The evidence suggested that Bell believed there was a large Bell was present with Mayeaux's

a m o u n t of cash and drugs in the home.

g ir lfr ie n d during the robbery and pretended to be a victim as Papillion robbed t h e m . The girlfriend testified that the intruders entered looking for drugs and m o n e y but found none. Bell testified that although some money was taken from h im , which he got back, the robbers did not find the drugs that he was hoping to get. In addition to this evidence, co-defendant Kendrick Boudreaux testified t h a t he used to rob drug dealers along with Bell, that he met Papillion in jail, a n d that Papillion discussed his common activities with Bell. Papillion told B o u d r e a u x that he intended to resume his activities when he was released from ja il, and he gave Boudreaux contact information for Bell. P a p ill i o n was acquitted on separate counts concerning the July 22 and A u g u s t 6 robberies and argues that the Government therefore may not rely on e v id e n c e concerning those incidents in support of his conviction. Papillion is in c o r r e c t . Consistency in the verdict is not necessary. See United States v. P o w e ll, 469 U.S. 57, 62­63, 105 S. Ct. 471, 475 (1984); see also United States v. N g u y e n , 28 F.3d 477, 480 (5th Cir. 1994) ("[A] not guilty verdict on one count d o e s not establish any facts favorable to the defense for the purpose of d e t e r m in in g the sufficiency of the evidence on the counts of conviction[.]"). We c o n c lu d e that a rational jury could find from the evidence adduced at trial that P a p illio n was a member of the conspiracy and attempted to obtain drugs with t h e intent to distribute. Although there was some inconsistency between the t r ia l testimony and witness statements to police, inconsistencies and credibility 3

Case: 09-31023 Document: 00511275132 Page: 4 Date Filed: 10/26/2010

No. 09-31023 a r e the province of the jury. See United States v. Greenwood, 974 F.2d 1449, 1 4 5 8 (5th Cir. 1992). A F F IR M E D .

4