ILNews

7th Circuit upholds drug convictions, remands for resentencing

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed three defendants’ convictions stemming from a cocaine distribution ring in Indianapolis but found that there were errors in sentencing the defendants.

Kenneth Jones, Devon Young and Elisha Drake were connected to Ramone Mockabee through FBI and Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department investigations. The investigators wiretapped phones, including that of Mockabee, considered a leader of the drug distribution ring. These conversations, along with evidence obtained following a search of Jones’ home, supported the government’s charges against the defendants. Jones, Young and Drake went to trial and were convicted. Mockabee pleaded guilty.

In the consolidated appeals of United States of America v. Kenneth Jones, Ramone Mockabee, Devon Young and Elisha Drake, 11-2267, 11-2288, 11-2535, 11-2687, the 7th Circuit affirmed Jones’, Young’s and Drake’s convictions. The judges found no error in denying Jones’ pre-trial motion to suppress evidence found at an Indianapolis home, finding investigators provided sufficient evidence to the magistrate issuing the warrant that the address was a residence of Jones.

The judges also found sufficient evidence to support the finding Jones has a substantial connection to that Indianapolis address and the crack cocaine located in it. And while the District Court erred under Federal Rules of Evidence 702 and 704 in admitting a detective’s testimony concerning the meaning of drug-related telephone conversations involving Drake, it was a harmless error as to Drake. The government also presented sufficient evidence to establish that Young conspired to distribute crack cocaine.

But the 7th Circuit found sentencing errors related to Mockabee, Jones and Drake. The government admitted an error occurred when Jones was denied his request to be sentenced under the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, because it applied to him at the time of sentencing. Mockabee should have been sentenced under the 2009 version of the guidelines in place at the time the crimes were committed instead of the 2010 version in place at sentencing. The more recent version provides for a higher sentencing guideline range, so he must be resentenced. The judges rejected his argument that the District Court erred in applying a four-level sentence enhancement based on the finding he was a leader or organizer of the criminal activity.

Drake must be resentenced based on Alleyne v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 2155 (2013), which held that any fact that increases the mandatory minimum is an element of the crime that must be submitted to the jury. The jury failed to make specific findings regarding the drug quantities, which increased her mandatory minimum sentence by 10 years.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT