Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowA northern Indiana gang member involved in a drug robbery-turned-shootout that resulted in a murder will not have his convictions overturned or sentenced reduced on federal appeal.
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday affirmed Lajuan Fitzpatrick’s conspiracy and murder convictions and related 36-year imprisonment in United States of America v. Lajuan Fitzpatrick, 21-1286.
The case before the court stemmed back to an incident in 2013.
After Robert Nieto, a leader of the Black Oak Latin Kings gang in Gary, learned that a local drug dealer, Anthony Martinez, had “some pounds” of marijuana at his home, he devised a plan to rob the home.
Nieto recruited Bruce Hendry, another gang member, and Hendry reached out to Mark Cherry, a former member of the Black P. Stone gang, who also agreed to participate. Cherry in turn looped his roommate, Lajuan Fitzpatrick, a member of the Black P. Stone, into the scheme.
Around Dec. 1, 2013, Cherry told Fitzpatrick that Hendry had a robbery for them. Cherry retrieved an assault rifle and a handgun from the home he shared with Fitzpatrick, telling Fitzpatrick they needed the guns for the robbery.
Hendry, Cherry and Fitzpatrick drove together to Nieto’s house and, sometime around midnight, put the plan into action.
Cherry and Henry exited the car upon arriving at Martinez’s home, carrying firearms and obscuring their faces with masks and black hoodies. That night, Martinez was watching television with his fiancee and two friends when he heard a knock on his front door.
Suspicious because that door was not normally used, Martinez walked out the back door to investigate and was hit in the head with a pistol. Martinez’s assailant then “threw [his] sweater over [his] face and walked [Martinez] through the back door” into his home.
Martinez’s brother, who lived next door, entered the kitchen, and a fight ensued. The brothers eventually subdued the assailants, but not before Martinez shot Cherry at least twice in the abdomen.
After hearing “rapid fire” shots aimed at the house, the brothers took cover in the kitchen, using the refrigerator as a shield. The scene around the house was described as a “war zone” due to the amount of gunfire.
In the chaos, an uninvolved friend of the Martinez brothers was fatally shot while his toddler-aged daughter looked on.
After sustaining serious gunshot wounds, Cherry was dragged from the home into the car in which he arrived, all while Fitzpatrick continued to spray fire from the street.
The group of robbers drove less than a block to Nieto’s house after getting Cherry into the car, where a nearby police officer arrested Cherry and the driver. Hendry and Fitzpatrick ran.
After fleeing to a friend’s house, attempting to clean himself up with bleach and telling a Latin Kings gang member that he “just laid a [expletive] down,” Fitzpatrick placed his bloody clothes into a steel drum and set them on fire.
Throughout the attack, Martinez had repeatedly indicated there was “[z]ero marijuana” in the home.
A grand jury returned a two-count indictment against Fitzpatrick, charging him with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana and carrying, using and discharging a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking crime resulting in killing defined as murder. He was found guilty as charged.
In paying special attention to the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities among similarly situated defendants, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana Judge Philip Simon acknowledged he was “troubled” that “the co-defendants in this case have received a variety of sentences.”
The court found Nieto, who received a life sentence, more culpable than Fitzpatrick given his role as ringleader of the crime and history of extensive gang-related criminal activity. Hendry’s sentence of 30 years was a notable discussion point for the court.
The district court went on to dismiss any comparison to Cherry or Landrum as not compelling.
Cherry, who received 15 years, had “cooperated, testified, [and] put himself at risk,” making his sentence “entirely defensible.” Landrum, the driver of the car, “played a really passing role in this case, literally driving these guys, like, around the block.” Even so, he received a 14-year sentence.
Finally, when choosing Fitzpatrick’s sentence, the district court emphasized the “extreme” and “frightening” level of violence that Fitzpatrick engaged in, acting like he was “in some war movie where you’re firing protective shots to keep your cohorts safe.”
The district court also factored in the death of the “terrific young man” and “good father,” concluding that a 36-year sentence was “sufficient but not greater than necessary to achieve all of the statutory goals of sentencing.”
Fitzpatrick argued on appeal that the government failed to present evidence sufficient to support his convictions, and challenged his sentence as substantively unreasonable.
But the 7th Circuit determined there was no evidentiary deficiency, especially given the fact “Fitzpatrick armed himself with an assault rifle to steal drugs.”
Regarding his sentencing, Fitzpatrick cited United States v. Wurzinger, 467 F.3d 649, 652 (7th Cir. 2006), arguing his 36 years was effectively a life sentence because he would be 65 when released.
“Even if what we glean from the sentencing transcript hints at an intent by the district court to give less than a life sentence, Fitzpatrick’s sentence is nevertheless reasonable for two reasons,” Senior Judge Joel Fluam wrote. “First, Fitzpatrick’s projected release date as calculated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons — July 30, 2048 — comes just shy of his 57th birthday. … Practically speaking, this sentence is not in excess of the projected life expectancy raised on appeal.
“Second, ‘even if we assume that [Fitzpatrick’s] sentence is effectively a life sentence, the district court adequately explained his sentence in a manner consistent with the (18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)) factors, which is all that was required,’” Flaum continued, citing United States v. McDonald, 981 F.3d 579, 581–82 (7th Cir. 2020).
Additionally, the 7th Circuit rejected Fitzpatrick’s argument that his sentencing was unreasonable compared to his co-conspirators.
“Here, Hendry cooperated and cut a deal (although the government certainly could have revoked it), and Cherry cooperated,” Flaum wrote. “Those qualify as reasonable sentencing differences based on rewards for cooperation.
“Fitzpatrick also argues that his de facto life sentence was unreasonable because it was effectively the same as Nieto’s, yet Nieto had a far worse criminal history,” the judge continued. “Nieto, however, received a real life sentence, not a de facto one. And the record is far from clear that Fitzpatrick would never leave prison, as we can see from his projected release date. … There was thus no unwarranted sentencing disparity between the two.”
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.