The Akron Legal News

Judges affirm prison terms for armed bank robber

JESSICA SHAMBAUGH
Special to the Legal News
Published: May 18, 2015

A 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel recently affirmed consecutive sentences for a man who pleaded guilty to committing an armed bank robbery.

The three-judge panel rejected Martavious Brannon’s contention that he was entitled to a shorter prison term because he admitted his guilt and was not prosecuted until six years after his offense.

The judges instead ruled that the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio properly sentenced Brannon to 141 months behind bars.

The facts of the case state that in December 2008, Brannon and two other men, Demetrious Wright and Dakota Wright, robbed the Fifth Third bank in Westlake, Ohio.

The prosecution alleged that Demetrious stayed in the getaway car while Brannon and Dakota entered the bank, pointed their guns at employees and customers and demanded money.

The two were able to collect the cash and escape the scene in the getaway car.

Demetrious reportedly drove the two men to Brannon’s home in Cleveland and the three of them divided the stolen cash.

In 2012, while Brannon was serving a 10-year state prison sentence for an unrelated 2010 robbery and assault, he was indicted for his role in the bank robbery.

He pleaded guilty to charges of bank robbery and brandishing a firearm during the commission of a violent crime.

The district court held a sentencing hearing in 2014 and granted Brannon a three-level sentencing reduction for accepting responsibility and a timely guilty plea.

Still, he faced a total offense level of 19, meaning he faced 57 to 71 months for bank robbery and a mandatory minimum of 84 months for the weapons conviction.

After considering all of the factors, the trial court sentenced him to 57 months for count one and ordered it to run consecutively to an 84-month term for count two.

It further ordered that the entire sentence run consecutively to his state sentence.

On appeal, Brannon challenged his sentence as substantively unreasonable.

“Specifically, he argues that the district court should have imposed a shorter sentence because, at the time of the robbery, he was 18 years old, was under the influence of marijuana and had only completed the 10th grade. He also argues that the court should have considered that the robbery occurred six years prior to sentencing and that he pled guilty without the benefit of a written plea agreement,” Judge Eugene Siler wrote for the circuit court.

Upon review, the appellate judges found that the trial court justified its sentencing decision by stating that, “sadly, at a very young age, you showed a willingness to repeatedly commit violent felonies, and I feel I need to send you to prison for a long time to protect the public and to deter you and others, so that’s what I’m doing.”

The appellate judges noted that Brannon’s age at the time of his offense and his education level were both in his presentence investigation report, which the trial court reviewed before issuing a sentence.

They further emphasized that a trial court is not required to consider the amount of time between an offense and sentencing unless it is an error by the prosecution.

“No such evidence is present here. Thus, it was proper for the court not to consider the six-year gap between the crime and the sentencing,” Siler stated.

The circuit judges also held that the trial court properly considered the state sentence, which Brannon was serving when he pleaded guilty to bank robbery.

The trial court stated, however, that if it ran his bank robbery sentence concurrent with that state sentence, “I wouldn’t be giving full credit to the prior sentence and to your dangerousness and propensity to commit violent felonies.”

“We conclude that Brannon’s sentence is substantively reasonable,” Siler wrote.

Finally, the circuit judges ruled that the trial court properly explained its decision to impose consecutive prison terms and that the explanation met the sentencing requirements outlined in the U.S. Constitution.

Having overruled each of Brannon’s arguments on appeal, Judges Deborah Cook and Jane Branstetter Stranch joined Siler in affirming the lower court’s ruling.

The case is cited USA v. Brannon, case No. 14-3615.

[Back]