United States v. Espree

United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-40170
Summary Calendar

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Lawrence James Espree,

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:17-CR-416-1

Before Clement, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Lawrence James Espree was convicted following a bench trial for
conspiring to possess with intent to deliver more than 50 grams of
methamphetamine. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846. The
district court imposed a downward variance sentence of 200 months of

*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
December 29, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Case: 20-40170 Document: 00515688517 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/29/2020

No. 20-40170
2
imprisonment and a five-year term of supervised release. Espree appeals,
contending that the district court should have granted his motion for a
judgment of acquittal. See Fed. R. App. P. 29(a). We affirm.
At the close of the Government’s evidence, Espree moved for a
judgment of acquittal on the specific basis that no Government witness had
identified him or testified that he is the person who committed the offense
charged in the indictment. On appeal, he asserts that the sole issue is whether
the Government met its burden to present substantial evidence of his identity
during its case in chief. We review this claim under the usual sufficiency
standard, which asks whether, “after viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the verdict, any rational trier fact could have found the essential
elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Herrera,
313 F.3d 882, 884 (5th Cir. 2002) (en banc).
Contrary to Espree’s assertion that inferring the identity of the
accused is impermissible, “[i]dentity . . . may be proved by inference and
circumstantial evidence.” United States v. Royals, 777 F.2d 1089, 1091 (5th
Cir. 1985). “An in-court identification is not necessary for conviction.”
United States v. Lugo-Lopez, 833 F.3d 453, 458 (5th Cir. 2016) (internal
quotation marks, citation, and brackets omitted). “[C]onnecting or
corroborating facts or circumstances” may supply the evidence needed in the
absence of an identification. United States v. Johnson, 427 F.2d 957, 961 (5th
Cir. 1970). In the instant case, inference, circumstantial evidence, and
connecting or corroborating facts and circumstances easily combine to prove
that the person convicted, Lawrence James Espree, is the person who
committed the crime charged in the indictment. Our thorough review of the
record establishes that the district court had ample basis for a rational
inference that the Lawrence James Espree who was the defendant in the trial
and who himself gave testimony is the Lawrence James Espree charged with
conspiracy in the indictment and the person who committed that crime. See
Case: 20-40170 Document: 00515688517 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/29/2020

No. 20-40170
3
Lugo-Lopez, 833 F.3d at 458; Royals, 777 F.2d at 1091; Johnson, 427 F.2d at
961. Indeed, it is difficult to fathom how a rational trier of fact could have
inferred anything to the contrary.
We do not read Espree’s counseled briefs as asserting a more
generalized insufficiency claim, as precedent precludes liberal construction
of counseled briefs. See Woodfox v. Cain, 609 F.3d 774, 792 (5th Cir. 2010).
Nevertheless, we note that any such claim would fail under either the usual
review standard for insufficiency claims or the stricter devoid-of-evidence
standard applicable to such claims if they are first raised on appeal. See
Herrera, 313 F.3d 884-85 & n.*; see also United States v. Ruiz, 860 F.2d 615,
617 (5th Cir. 1988). Our thorough review of the record establishes that the
testimony of Alfonso Cuevas, a Government witness and unindicted co-
conspirator, was alone sufficient to convict Espree. See United States v.
Valdez, 453 F.3d 252, 257 (5th Cir. 2006); see also United States v. Solis, 299
F.3d 420, 445 (5th Cir. 2002). Thus, the record is not devoid of evidence
that Espree committed the charged drug conspiracy; to the contrary, the
record contains sufficient evidence that he did. See Herrera, 313 F.3d at 884-
85 & n.*.
AFFIRMED.

Case: 20-40170 Document: 00515688517 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/29/2020