NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
File Name: 17a0151n.06
No. 16-5358
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
FILED
Mar 08, 2017
)
DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
Plaintiff-Appellee, )
)
v. ) ON APPEAL FROM THE
) UNITED STATES DISTRICT
JOSHUA HAYWORTH, ) COURT FOR THE EASTERN
) DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
Defendant-Appellant. )
)
)
BEFORE: BOGGS, SILER, and MOORE, Circuit Judges.
BOGGS, Circuit Judge. After robbing a Burger King, Joshua Hayworth went on the run
from the police. He wrecked his initial vehicle and abandoned a second car once law
enforcement agents recognized him while he drove some days later. When a manhunt began and
police closed in, Hayworth frantically sought another method of escape. He rushed at two
women standing in a driveway (one nine months pregnant), shouting at them to give him keys,
and jumped on top of the fallen pregnant victim to struggle with her and seize her keys. After he
was caught, he was charged with and found guilty of Hobbs Act robbery and carjacking. He
now appeals his carjacking conviction and sentence. We affirm both.
I
Just after 11 p.m. on January 30, 2014, Joshua Hayworth approached a Burger King in
Lenoir City, Tennessee, with his face covered and carrying an airsoft pistol. In accordance with
No. 16-5358, United States v. Hayworth
a prearranged plan, Timothy Chudley—an acquaintance of Hayworth’s—opened the back door,
ostensibly to take out the trash and salt patches of ice by the back entrance, but in truth to let
Hayworth into the restaurant. Hayworth rushed into the Burger King, brandishing the pistol and
shouting at the staff to get on the ground, open the safe, and give him the money. Once he had
stolen approximately $3,300 from the restaurant, he engaged in a brief struggle with Chudley—
part of the plan to make Chudley appear to be an innocent employee. Hayworth fled with the
money in his sister’s Nissan Maxima, but wrecked it moments after he passed an officer
responding to the robbery. After being ejected from the car, he ran from the crash and eluded
pursuing officers and dogs. Officers recovered, among other items, a large amount of cash, the
airsoft pistol, Hayworth’s phone, and his parole identification card from the wrecked car.
Hayworth managed to get his hands on a Jeep Wrangler and met with a friend, Nikisha
Popejoy, to discuss his predicament. A few days later, on February 3, the two drove together to a
pawn shop to sell one of the Jeep’s speakers. While he was driving back to Popejoy’s home, an
FBI agent in an unmarked car saw the Jeep and pulled up beside it at a red light, where he
recognized Hayworth. After another agent also began following the Jeep, Hayworth realized he
was being shadowed and sped off, weaving across lanes at a high rate of speed and at times
travelling on the wrong side of the road to lose the agents. Once he had shaken his tails,
Hayworth dropped Popejoy off near her home. He then abandoned the Jeep a short distance
away. By this point, a full manhunt had begun, and the Knox County Sheriff’s Department sent
out a police helicopter to aid the search while police officers swarmed the scene.
Some time later, neighbors Melissa McGuire and Sarah Gulley were discussing the recent
commotion in the neighborhood as well as Gulley’s excitement for the imminent arrival of her
first child, as she was nine months pregnant and due to be induced in four days. Suddenly,
-2-
No. 16-5358, United States v. Hayworth
Hayworth emerged from between two houses, running at the women with his hand in his pocket
as if he were armed and shouting at them to give him their keys. Alarmed, McGuire told Gulley
to flee, but as Gulley attempted to do so, she tripped and fell on her stomach onto the pavement.
Hayworth demanded keys from McGuire but she was unable to produce them, and so he turned
his attention to the fallen Gulley, who had her keys in her hand. Screaming for the keys,
Hayworth wrestled with Gulley to take them from her, jabbing her in an attempt to gain control.
McGuire pleaded with Hayworth to leave Gulley alone as she was pregnant. After a struggle,
Hayworth managed to wrest away the keys from Gulley and found her car by using the alarm
button. As he began to leave in Gulley’s car, Gulley pleaded for Hayworth to release her dog,
which was inside the car. Hayworth opened the door and let the dog out of the vehicle before
driving away.1
As he fled the scene of this new crime, he passed the FBI agent who had spotted him
earlier in the day. Just as he had following his Burger King robbery, Hayworth then immediately
lost control of the vehicle and wrecked it. By the time officers reached the crash scene,
Hayworth was gone. But following the hue and cry of bystanders, police tracked Hayworth to an
abandoned house and found him hiding under a couch.
Hayworth was charged with Hobbs Act robbery, aiding and abetting the same, and
carjacking under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1951, and 2119. He pleaded not guilty and went to trial, where
he was convicted on both counts by a jury. At sentencing, he received a 200-month term of
imprisonment. Hayworth appeals on three bases: first, that the evidence presented was
insufficient to convict him of carjacking; second, that the district court’s denial of a motion for a
judgment of acquittal was erroneous because the “passions, prejudices, or sympathies” of the
1
Fortunately, Gulley’s son was born healthy and unharmed.
-3-
No. 16-5358, United States v. Hayworth
jury were overwhelming, given the emotional testimony of the victims; and third, that the district
court erred in the length of the sentence it imposed.
II
A. Sufficiency of the Evidence
We review de novo whether the evidence is sufficient to support a conviction in a
criminal case. United States v. Garcia, 758 F.3d 714, 718 (6th Cir. 2014). A defendant who
challenges the sufficiency of the evidence “bears a very heavy burden,” as we consider all
evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and decide whether a rational trier of fact
could have found that the essential elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable
doubt. United States v. Spearman, 186 F.3d 743, 746 (6th Cir. 1999). We should reverse a
conviction if we determine “that the government’s case against the defendant was so lacking that
the trial court should have entered a judgment of acquittal, rather than submitting the case to the
jury.” Lockhart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33, 39 (1988).
The federal statute criminalizing carjacking includes several elements. It states that
“[w]hoever, with the intent to cause death or serious bodily harm takes a motor vehicle that has
been transported, shipped, or received in interstate or foreign commerce from the person or
presence of another by force and violence or by intimidation, or attempts to do so, shall” face a
set of penalties, depending on whether death or serious bodily harm actually result. 18 U.S.C.
§ 2119. Hayworth challenges only one of these elements: whether he had “intent to cause death
or serious bodily harm.” Because § 2119 is a specific-intent crime, “the United States must show
more than that the defendant committed the criminal acts; it must also show evidence of the
specific mental culpability at issue,” here that Hayworth actually intended to cause death or
serious bodily injury. United States v. Adams, 265 F.3d 420, 424 (6th Cir. 2001).
-4-
No. 16-5358, United States v. Hayworth
The Supreme Court has held that the intent required for this crime also encompasses
conditional intent. See Holloway v. United States, 526 U.S. 1, 8 (1999). That is to say, a
carjacker’s intent need not be to kill or seriously injure; rather, it can also be simply the intent to
kill or seriously injure if the victim resists. Id. at 11–12 (“[T]he Government [must] prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant would have at least attempted to seriously harm or
kill the driver if that action had been necessary to complete the taking of the car.” Id. at 12.). In
order to find conditional intent, we must examine the “totality of the circumstances to evaluate
whether the defendant’s words and actions sufficiently demonstrated” such an intent. United
States v. Fekete, 535 F.3d 471, 481 (6th Cir. 2008).
Hayworth argues that he had no weapon and even let the dog out of the car once he stole
it, demonstrating that he merely wanted the keys and not to cause any harm. But a weapon is not
a prerequisite to a carjacking conviction; rather “[t]he requisite mens rea can be shown by
evidence of an intent to use . . . brute force, or any other means that indicates an ability and
willingness to cause serious bodily harm or death if not obeyed.” Id. at 480. In United States v.
Edmond, 815 F.3d 1032 (6th Cir. 2016), we observed that there was sufficient evidence of intent
to cause death or serious bodily harm where there was a physical fight with a valet over keys. Id.
at 1040. Hayworth argues that this observation is mere dicta, as we concluded that the defendant
in that case would have been convicted on an alternate ground (i.e., reaching for a firearm was
sufficient to demonstrate specific intent). But in that case, we stated that the conviction would
stand even if he had not reached for a gun, a point that was in contention given that the jury had
acquitted the defendant of firearm possession during commission of the crime. Ibid. Because
the Edmond panel determined that the physical struggle without the gun was also sufficient to
demonstrate the requisite intent, it did not resolve the factual dispute. Thus, that determination
-5-
No. 16-5358, United States v. Hayworth
was material to the decision, rather than obiter dicta. Regardless, our case appears to have even
greater evidence of such conditional intent than did Edmond. Testimony at trial showed that
Hayworth struck and struggled with a nine-months pregnant woman, who had already fallen to
the ground, until she relinquished her keys. Considering the totality of the circumstances,
including testimony that demonstrated that Hayworth was aware that Gulley was pregnant when
he jabbed and fought her, the evidence was sufficient to find that Hayworth intended to cause at
least serious bodily harm if Gulley did not relinquish the keys.
B. Impartial-Jury Allegation
Hayworth’s next argument is that the case should not have gone to the jury because the
prosecution had Gulley testify last “to ensure maximum emotional impact upon the jury—a
skillful move . . . done to ensure that the passions, prejudices, and sympathies of the jury were
inflamed.” Appellant’s Br. 21. As a result of the government’s “prey[ing] upon the[se]
passions,” Hayworth alleges that the trial court should have known that “the jury would likely
base its verdict on [them] . . . , [and] not the actual facts of the case.” Id. at 24.
A defendant must be “fairly tried in a public tribunal free of prejudice, passion,
excitement, and tyrannical power.” Chambers v. Florida, 309 U.S. 227, 236–37 (1940). But
Hayworth’s objection was not at voir dire to the partiality of individual jurors. Rather, the
objection was that the jury as a whole would rule on emotion. In this case, before permitting the
jurors to deliberate, the district court provided instructions “not [to] let any bias, sympathy or
prejudice you may feel toward one side or the other influence your decision in any way.”
Though the testimony was certainly gripping and emotional, there was no demonstration that it
was presented in a way that overcame the jury’s presumed impartiality. See Skilling v. United
States, 561 U.S. 358, 399 n.34 (2010) (“[I]t is a premise of [our justice] system that jurors will
-6-
No. 16-5358, United States v. Hayworth
set aside their preconceptions when they enter the courtroom and decide cases based on the
evidence presented.”). Absent demonstrable statements by the prosecutor attempting to call on a
jury’s emotions or fears, see, e.g., Johnson v. Bell, 525 F.3d 466, 484 (6th Cir. 2008), or
encouraging jury identification with crime victims, see, e.g., Hodge v. Hurley, 426 F.3d 368, 384
(6th Cir. 2005), Hayworth cannot show that the testimony clearly prejudiced his case or rendered
it fundamentally unfair. See United States v. Poandl, 612 F. App’x 356, 365 (6th Cir. 2015).
And this result makes sense: where a defendant commits a heinous act, he cannot but expect that
the horrible details will be presented where they are central to the prosecution and elements of
the crime. As long as proper precautions are taken to ensure that the jury is aware of its
obligation to remain impartial and no improper attempts are made to tempt it away from that
responsibility, the jury is presumed to have done its duty.
C. Hayworth’s Sentence
Finally, Hayworth challenges only the substantive reasonableness of his sentence. Here,
both parties agree that the district court correctly calculated the Sentencing Guidelines range at
110 to 137 months, given Hayworth’s offense level of 28 and criminal history category of IV.
The dispute lies in the district court’s grant of the prosecution’s motion for an upward variance in
sentencing Hayworth to 200 months in prison. “The essence of a substantive-reasonableness
claim is whether the length of the sentence is ‘greater than necessary’ to achieve the sentencing
goals set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).” United States v. Tristan-Madrigal, 601 F.3d 629, 632–
33 (6th Cir. 2010). “A sentence is substantively unreasonable if the district court selects the
sentence arbitrarily, bases the sentence on impermissible factors, fails to consider pertinent
§ 3553(a) factors or gives an unreasonable amount of weight to any pertinent factor.” Id. at 633
-7-
No. 16-5358, United States v. Hayworth
(quoting United States v. Walls, 546 F.3d 728, 736 (6th Cir. 2008)). Our standard of review in
such cases is for abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46 (2007).
The district court carefully went through the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors as applied to
Hayworth’s case. After discussing the various factors, the court granted the government’s
motion for an upward variance, emphasizing the nature and scope of Hayworth’s criminal history
and the violent nature of his conduct in the case at hand. In particular, the district court
emphasized the “strong need to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant” and
found that a variance was appropriate “to promote respect for the law, provide just punishment
and to afford adequate deterrence.”
It is true that the sentence in this case was a nearly fifty-percent increase from the high
end of the Sentencing Guidelines range. Nevertheless, “[a]lthough we may consider the extent
of the deviation in reviewing a district court’s sentence, we ‘must give due deference to the
district court’s decision that the § 3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the
variance.’” United States v. Lanning, 633 F.3d 469, 476 (6th Cir. 2011) (quoting Gall, 552 U.S.
at 51). The demonstration of violence in this case by Hayworth was striking: his robbery of the
Burger King caused one employee to require mental-health treatment and his carjacking involved
a fight with a nine-months pregnant woman. Furthermore, Hayworth had a history of significant
criminal conduct and was on parole for a prior aggravated robbery at the time of the Burger King
robbery. The district court made special note of the “nature, scope and in certain aspects the
violent nature of [Hayworth’s] previous criminal history”2 and that “the defendant has been
involved in the criminal justice system beginning as a juvenile continuing through his entire
2
In discussing the variance, the court referred to Hayworth’s violent nature on four separate occasions. (“[T]he
Court is cognizant of . . . in certain aspects the violent nature of [Hayworth’s] previous criminal history”;
“[Hayworth’s criminal history] demonstrat[es] the violent nature of this defendant”; “[a]gain, the Court notes the
violent nature of his conduct in this case”; “the nature of the instant offense was extremely violent.”)
-8-
No. 16-5358, United States v. Hayworth
life.” Accordingly, “[g]iven [Hayworth]’s prior convictions and his parole status, it was
reasonable for the district court to place substantial weight on [Hayworth]’s criminal history in
reaching its sentencing determination.” United States v. Webb, 403 F.3d 373, 384 (6th Cir.
2005). The district court did not abuse its discretion in varying upward because it “selected a
punishment that it believed fit [Hayworth]’s crimes, and provided sufficient reasons to justify it.”
United States v. Vowell, 516 F.3d 503, 512 (6th Cir. 2008). The district court provided thorough
justification, citing in detail the violent history and unrepentant nature of Hayworth as well as his
“callous disregard for persons in particular as well as property.” Accordingly, his sentence was
substantively reasonable and within the district court’s discretion.
III
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM Hayworth’s conviction and sentence.
-9-