United States v. Stamper
91 F. App'x 445 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a 'serious bodily injury' sentencing enhancement to apply under U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(3)(B), the government must prove the injury involved extreme physical pain, protracted impairment of a bodily function, or required significant medical intervention like surgery or hospitalization. Evidence of an elevated blood pressure reading and a hospital visit, without more detail on treatment or impairment, is insufficient to meet this standard.
Facts:
- On July 22, 2000, Leon Stamper went to a used car dealership, falsely identified himself as 'Rob Love,' and asked to test-drive a Pontiac Trans Am.
- During the test drive with Jeff Cochran, a 65-year-old salesman, Stamper pulled out a pistol and held Cochran at gunpoint.
- Stamper drove Cochran down a country road, forced him into a wooded area, and dragged him up a hill.
- Stamper handcuffed Cochran's hands behind his back, gagged him, and bound his mouth and legs with electrical tape.
- When Stamper could not find Cochran's wallet, he kicked him in the back, causing cuts and bleeding wrists from the tight handcuffs.
- Stamper fled in the Trans Am, leaving Cochran bound in the woods.
- Cochran eventually freed himself and sought help; later that evening, he became dizzy and went to a local hospital due to elevated blood pressure.
- Stamper was later arrested in Kansas after traveling across the country in the stolen Trans Am with his partner, Rachel Bonapfel.
Procedural Posture:
- Leon Stamper was convicted by a jury in a federal district court on five counts, including car-jacking and related firearm offenses.
- At sentencing, the district court applied a four-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(3)(B), finding the victim had sustained a 'serious bodily injury'.
- The district court sentenced Stamper to 360 months of imprisonment.
- Stamper, the appellant, appealed his judgment of conviction and his sentence to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a victim's elevated blood pressure requiring a trip to the hospital, coupled with bleeding wrist wounds from handcuffs that did not require hospitalization or result in protracted impairment, constitute a 'serious bodily injury' under U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(3)(B) for the purpose of a sentencing enhancement?
Opinions:
Majority - Kennedy, Circuit Judge.
No. A victim’s cuts and elevated blood pressure requiring a hospital visit do not constitute a 'serious bodily injury' without specific evidence of extreme physical pain, protracted impairment, or significant medical intervention such as surgery or hospitalization. The court found that while the victim, Cochran, sustained a 'bodily injury' sufficient for a two-level enhancement (painful and obvious wounds for which medical attention was sought), the evidence did not rise to the level of 'serious bodily injury' for a four-level enhancement. The record provided no basis to characterize the pain from the handcuff wounds as 'extreme.' Furthermore, while Cochran went to the hospital for dizziness and high blood pressure, the record was silent as to the duration of his visit, any treatment he received, or any resulting protracted impairment. Therefore, the evidence was insufficient to support the district court's application of the 'serious bodily injury' enhancement.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the evidentiary burden for prosecutors seeking a sentencing enhancement for 'serious bodily injury' under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. The court's analysis distinguishes between 'bodily injury' and the higher standard of 'serious bodily injury,' signaling that conclusory evidence, such as the mere fact of a hospital visit, is insufficient. The ruling requires a detailed factual record showing that the injury meets one of the specific prongs of the definition—extreme pain, protracted impairment, or significant medical intervention. This precedent makes it more difficult for the government to obtain the greater enhancement without providing specific medical evidence and testimony detailing the severity and consequences of the victim's injuries.
