United States v. Newton ( 2023 )

Case: 22-20375 Document: 00516976551 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/21/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
____________ FILED
November 21, 2023
No. 22-20375 Lyle W. Cayce
____________ Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Sye Newton,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:19-CR-816-1
______________________________
Before Jolly, Engelhardt, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
A jury convicted Appellant Sye Newton of bank robbery and
brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence following the 2019 armed
robbery of a Houston, Texas bank. Newton appeals his conviction. 1 We
AFFIRM.
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
1
Once on appeal, Newton moved this appellate court to convene an evidentiary
hearing to explore a supposed alibi that would undermine his conviction. We DENY this
motion.
Case: 22-20375 Document: 00516976551 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/21/2023
No. 22-20375
On March 25, 2019, a man, subsequently acknowledged to be Newton,
dressed in a hijab and with a semiautomatic pistol in his hand, entered IBC
Bank on South Kirkwood Drive in Houston, Texas. Newton ordered
everyone to get down, demanded 50- and 100-dollar bills, and threatened to
shoot bank tellers for noncompliance. He fled the bank with about
$15,740.00 cash.
Following the robbery, a bank customer followed the getaway car and
photographed its license plate. Two days later, police found this vehicle—
registered to Newton’s girlfriend—abandoned outside a private residence in
Houston, impounded it, obtained a search warrant, and searched it.
However, it was not until months later that police apprehended Newton and
his girlfriend at a traffic stop in San Antonio, which led to his arrest for the
Houston robbery. While in jail, Newton agreed to a custodial interrogation
relating to the Houston robbery. Police Mirandized and interviewed
Newton, who admitted that he robbed the Houston IBC bank. Prior to trial,
Newton moved to suppress evidence found in his girlfriend’s car and the
statement made to the police while in jail. The district court largely denied
Newton’s motions but did exclude certain pre-mirandized statements made
by Newton. Newton went to trial and was convicted by the jury.
Now on appeal, Newton argues that the district court erred in failing
to suppress evidence from the automobile search because the search warrant
was insufficient. Newton, however, lacks standing to challenge the search of
his girlfriend’s car because he had no possessory interest in the car. United
States v. Hernandez, 647 F.3d 216, 219 (5th Cir. 2011). Furthermore, the car
was abandoned, confirming that Newton lacked the reasonable expectation
of privacy necessary to challenge its search. United States v. Colbert, 474 F.2d
174, 176 (5th Cir. 1973) (en banc).
2
Case: 22-20375 Document: 00516976551 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/21/2023
No. 22-20375
Second, Newton argues that police coercion rendered his confession
involuntary. Newton alleges that his confession was coerced because police
(1) indicated they would charge Newton’s girlfriend if he did not confess, (2)
misrepresented the strength of their case, (3) indicated they would keep
Newton’s case in state court where the penalties are less severe, and (4) took
advantage of the situational conditions, i.e., recent arrest, lack of sleep for
past 24 hours, interview in a small prison office room, and he had not yet been
charged or arraigned.
When a defendant challenges the voluntariness of a statement, the
Government bears the burden of proving voluntariness by a preponderance
of the evidence. United States v. Reynolds, 367 F.3d 294, 297–98 (5th Cir.
2004) (per curiam). A statement is voluntary if, “under the totality of the
circumstances, the statement is ‘the product of the accused’s free and
rational choice.’” Id. at 298 (quoting United States v. Garcia Abrego, 141 F.3d
142, 170 (5th Cir. 1998)).
Here, the evidence shows that the police did not cross any of the
forbidden lines that could lead to reversible coercion. Indeed, we have in
other cases held that interrogators may even employ deceptive means while
interrogating a criminal defendant so long as it does not “deprive[] the
defendant of knowledge essential to his ability to understand the nature of his
rights [or] consequences of abandoning them.” United States v. Bell, 367 F.3d
452, 461 (5th Cir. 2004); see also Self v. Collins, 973 F.2d 1198, 1205 (5th Cir.
1992). None of the police conduct in the instant case even approached the
negative or deceptive tactics seen in cases in which we upheld the confession.
Newton’s lack of sleep does not by itself render his confession involuntary.
Reynolds, 367 F.3d at 297-99. Nor did the officers threaten Newton or display
their weapons. Moreover, the district court found that Newton was
intelligent and had a clear understanding of the criminal justice system.
Additionally, police interrogated Newton in an office—not a jail cell—while
3
Case: 22-20375 Document: 00516976551 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/21/2023
No. 22-20375
Newton was free of any restraints. The circumstances indicate that the
interview was not threatening and that Newton spoke willingly. In sum, the
totality of the circumstances of the interview establishes the voluntariness of
Newton’s confession. United States v. Broussard, 80 F.3d 1025, 1033 (5th Cir.
1996).
For the reasons given above, Newton’s conviction is
AFFIRMED.
4