United States v. Whitlow ( 1997 )

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
No. 96-3246
THOMAS WAYNE WHITLOW,
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER
Filed September 5, 1997
Before PORFILIO and LOGAN, Circuit Judges, and BURRAGE, District Judge. *
This matter is before the court on defendant-appellant’s petition for
rehearing and motion that the petition be accepted out of time. In the interests of
justice, we accept this filing and grant the petition. We recall the mandate,
withdraw the order and judgment entered on June 6, 1997, and modify the
judgment. A substitute order and judgment is filed this date and the mandate is
reissued.
Entered for the Court
PATRICK FISHER, Clerk
*
Honorable Michael Burrage, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Oklahoma, sitting by designation.
F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
SEP 5 1997
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
No. 96-3246
v. (D.C. No. 95-20039-KHV)
(D. Kan.)
THOMAS WAYNE WHITLOW,
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before PORFILIO and LOGAN, Circuit Judges, and BURRAGE, District Judge. **
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
**
Honorable Michael Burrage, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Oklahoma, sitting by designation.
Defendant Thomas Wayne Whitlow appeals from a jury verdict finding him
guilty of nine counts of mail and wire fraud. 1 He was sentenced to seventy-one
months’ imprisonment, and was ordered to pay $18,730 in restitution and $450 in
special assessments. Mr. Whitlow has also been denied all telephone privileges
during his incarceration.
Mr. Whitlow devised a scheme whereby he obtained money from elderly
persons by calling and pretending to be a grandson in need of money either
because he was in jail and needed to post bail or because he had been in a traffic
accident and needed to pay the victim’s medical expenses. Mr. Whitlow’s
co-defendant, Mr. Talley, would then take the phone claiming to be either a police
officer, Mr. Whitlow’s bondsman, or his lawyer. Mr. Talley would tell the victim
where to send the money.
Mr. Whitlow decided whom to call by selecting names out of various phone
books. He specifically targeted his victims by choosing someone whose first
name might connote that the person was elderly. He generally looked for females
whom he thought might be widows or living alone, thinking they would be easier
targets. Some of the calls were placed while Mr. Whitlow was incarcerated.
1
Mr. Whitlow’s co-defendant was also convicted. His appeal, United States
v. Talley, No. 96-3269, was terminated December 30, 1996, on Mr. Talley’s
motion to dismiss.
-2-
On appeal, Mr. Whitlow argues the district court (1) abused its discretion in
rejecting his waiver of his right to a jury trial; (2) lacked authority to order that he
be deprived of all access to a telephone; and (3) erroneously imposed restitution
in an amount exceeding the amount of the victims’ losses. He also contends that
the restitution should have been apportioned between both defendants and that his
sentence should not have been enhanced under the vulnerable victim provision of
the sentencing guidelines.
Mr. Whitlow argues the district court erred by not permitting him to waive
his right to a jury trial. The decision of whether to grant a defendant’s request for
a trial to the court is committed to the trial court’s discretion. See Patton v.
United States, 281 U.S. 276, 299 (1930). Under the abuse of discretion standard,
we will not disturb the trial court’s decision unless we have “a definite and firm
conviction that the . . . court made a clear error of judgment or exceeded the
bounds of permissible choice in the circumstances.” Moothart v. Bell, 21 F.3d
1499, 1504 (10th Cir. 1994).
A jury trial is “the constitutionally preferred method of disposing of
criminal cases.” United States v. Martin, 704 F.2d 267, 272 (6th Cir. 1983)
(citing Patton, 281 U.S. at 312). Therefore, in reaching its decision, the court
must “avoid unreasonable or undue departures from that mode of trial or from any
of the essential elements thereof . . . .” Id. at 273.
-3-
Mr. Whitlow stated that he wanted a trial to the court so “if something is
not done right in trial,” he could later “come back and hold the judge responsible
if the judge allows certain stuff to come in court and it’s not by rights as far as
law . . . .” R. Vol. VIII, tab 183 at 3. Mr. Whitlow also felt that the prosecutor
would have an advantage before a jury because he would be able to play on the
jury’s emotions by presenting elderly people as witnesses which would elicit the
sympathies of the jury and tend to make him look guilty. Id.
We agree with the district court that these reasons are insufficient to deny
Mr. Whitlow “the mode of trial [which best] satisfies the public conscience that
fairness dominate[] the administration of justice.” Martin, 704 F.2d at 272(quotation omitted). The district court did not abuse its discretion when it
determined that the reasons Mr. Whitlow presented were insufficient to warrant a
departure from the constitutionally preferred jury trial.
Mr. Whitlow also contends that the district court lacked the authority to
order that he be deprived of all telephone access. We agree with Mr. Whitlow
that the sentencing guidelines do not contain authority permitting the court to
impose such a sentence.
A district court may only impose a sentence of a term of years and a fine
for violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341-43. Thus, the court has no statutory authority
to regulate an inmate’s conditions of confinement. A review of the sentencing
-4-
transcript reveals that the government asked the court to recommend that Mr.
Whitlow’s telephone access be denied to assist the Bureau of Prisons in
fashioning the conditions under which Mr. Whitlow would be confined. See R.
Vol. XII, tab 188 at 33-34. In its judgment, the district court stated that “[t]he
defendant shall not be allowed any use of a telephone during his term of
incarceration.” Id. Vol. VII, tab 155 at 2. While the district court could only
have intended to issue a recommendation, the court’s language does read as a
direct order. Therefore, we direct the district court on remand to modify this
portion of the judgment to more clearly indicate that it is making the requested
recommendation.
Mr. Whitlow argues the district court erroneously imposed restitution in an
amount exceeding the amount of the victims’ losses and that the restitution should
have been apportioned between both defendants. “We review the legality of a
sentence of restitution de novo.” United States v. Harris, 7 F.3d 1537, 1539 (10th
Cir. 1993).
A court may order a defendant to make restitution to victims of an offense,
see 18 U.S.C. § 3663(a)(1), “to ensure that victims, to the greatest extent
possible, are made whole for their losses.” United States v. Arutunoff, 1 F.3d
1112, 1121 (10th Cir. 1993). Restitution, however, may not be ordered in an
amount greater than the total loss caused by a defendant’s conduct. Id. While the
-5-
statute does not explain how multiple defendants are to be treated, courts have
apportioned the total loss among the defendants or made the obligation to pay
joint and several. Id. at 1121 n.10. Courts have also imposed “the entire amount
of restitution liability solely upon one defendant even though a codefendant was
equally culpable . . . .” Harris, 7 F.3d at 1540.
Mr. Whitlow was ordered to pay $18,730.00 based on the losses incurred by
the victims in the nine counts of the conviction. Of that amount, $5,730.00 was
lost by one victim, Myrtle Thompson. Mr. Talley was also ordered to pay
$5,730.00 to Ms. Thompson. As victims may not receive more in restitution than
they have lost, any order which results in this occurrence exceeds the court’s
statutory jurisdiction and is illegal. See Arutunoff, 1 F.3d at 1121. Thus, we
must modify the district court’s order and direct that in the event Mr. Talley pays
any restitution to Ms. Thompson, Mr. Whitlow should receive credit on his
restitution order. 2
Finally, Mr. Whitlow contends his sentence should not have been enhanced
under the vulnerable victim provision of the sentencing guidelines. We review
the factual findings on which a determination of victim vulnerability is based for
2
Because Mr. Talley is not before this court, we are reluctant to order any
change to Mr. Whitlow’s sentence which would require modification of Mr.
Talley’s sentence. Therefore, both our and the district court’s discretion to
fashion a restitution order taking into account the options noted above is
eliminated.
-6-
clear error. United States v. Hardesty, 105 F.3d 558, 559 (10th Cir. 1997). The
district court’s conclusion that the victims of the crime were vulnerable victims
under U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1 concerns the court’s interpretation and application of the
guideline, and is reviewed de novo. United States v. McAlpine, 32 F.3d 484,
487-88 (10th Cir. 1994).
Sentencing Guideline § 3A1.1 provides that a defendant's base offense level
should be increased by 2 levels “[i]f the defendant knew or should have known
that a victim of the offense was unusually vulnerable due to age, physical or
mental condition, or that a victim was otherwise particularly susceptible to the
criminal conduct.” Mr. Whitlow argues that the district court enhanced his
statement solely because the victims were elderly. The fact that a victim is
“elderly” does not, without more, support a vulnerable victim enhancement. See
United States v. Lee, 973 F.2d 832, 834-35 (10th Cir. 1992).
We do not agree that the district court enhanced Mr. Whitlow’s sentence
solely because the victims were elderly. The court stated that Mr. Whitlow
targeted not just the elderly, but those he knew were especially vulnerable
“because [of] their family ties [and] their sense of loyalty to family
members . . . .” R. Vol. XII, tab 188 at 3. The court further noted that Mr.
Whitlow did not pretend to be the victims’ sons, but their grandsons with whom
“the victims would not have had particularly close contact in terms of ability to
-7-
recognize their voices and so forth.” Id. Further, at Mr. Talley’s sentencing, the
district court found that the victims were particularly susceptible to the criminal
conduct as the victims “didn’t trust their own judgment about whether they really
were talking to their grandson or not. So they gave this caller every benefit of the
doubt, more benefit of the doubt than they should have, but they were
vulnerable.” Id. Supp. Vol. III, tab 167 at 61-62. The district court did not err in
enhancing Mr. Whitlow’s sentence under the vulnerable victim guideline.
Mr. Whitlow’s conviction is AFFIRMED. We REMAND this case to the
district court with directions that the judgment be MODIFIED to (1) clarify that
the telephone restrictions are a recommendation from the court and (2) to state
that Mr. Whitlow’s restitution is to be credited by any sums paid by Mr. Talley to
the victim, Ms. Thompson.
IT IS SO ORDERED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.
Entered for the Court
John C. Porfilio
Circuit Judge
-8-