A recent ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has upheld the conviction of Catrell Ivory on robbery and gun charges. Ivory, who was sentenced to over 26 years in prison, argued that he received ineffective assistance of counsel during his trial. However, the court found that even if his lawyer made mistakes, those errors didn’t change the outcome of the case.
The case stems from a series of armed robberies at Walmart stores in Florida during the summer of 2017. According to court documents, Ivory and two accomplices targeted three different stores, making off with approximately $100,000.
The Crimes: A Summer of Robberies
The court’s opinion provides a detailed account of the robberies. The pattern was consistent: three masked men, armed with guns, would enter the stores around midnight. One would stand guard while the other two forced a manager to open the cash registers. After grabbing the money, they would flee in a stolen car.
The first robbery, on June 2, 2017, involved Ivory holding a gun to a manager’s head while another robber threatened a second manager. The crew escaped with about $75,000, with one of the robbers firing a shot at an employee as they fled.
Two months later, the gang struck again. This time, they forced shoppers to the ground. Ivory’s role was to keep watch at the entrance. They made off with around $25,000.
An attempt to rob a third Walmart eleven days later was unsuccessful. The robbers couldn’t find a manager to open the safe and left empty-handed.
The Investigation and Arrests
Police connected the first robbery to Bakari McCant, Ivory’s cousin. After McCant’s arrest, he called Ivory’s mother and told her to have Ivory “stay where the fuck he at.” Another accomplice, Jarvis Wingster, cooperated with the government and implicated Ivory, saying he, McCant, and Ivory committed the first two robberies. Cell phone location data also placed Ivory near the Walmarts during the second and third robberies.
Based on the evidence, a grand jury indicted Ivory on five robbery and gun charges.
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claims
Ivory’s trial was handled by Nicole Blair Dickerson, who has since been disbarred. Ivory claimed that his attorney’s actions prejudiced his case in two ways:
* Plea Offers: Ivory claimed his attorney misled him about having secured two witnesses to testify on his behalf, which led him to reject plea deals from the government.
* Failure to Call a Witness: Ivory argued that his attorney’s failure to call his cousin, McCant, as a witness was a critical error. He believed McCant’s testimony would have helped his case.
The Court’s Decision: No Prejudice Shown
The Appeals Court considered Ivory’s claims but ultimately denied his appeal. The court acknowledged that Ivory’s attorney’s performance was poor, but determined that the errors did not prejudice Ivory’s defense.
Regarding the Plea Offers: The court found that Ivory could not demonstrate that he would have accepted a plea deal if he had received competent advice. The court cited Ivory’s consistent claims of innocence throughout the proceedings, including during sentencing, as evidence that he would not have accepted a plea. The court pointed out that Ivory repeatedly said he didn’t do it, and he rejected the plea offers because of that.
Regarding the Witness (McCant): The court determined that McCant’s testimony would not have changed the outcome of the trial for two main reasons. First, it was unlikely McCant would have testified, as he could have incriminated himself. Second, even if McCant had testified, his testimony would have likely hurt Ivory’s case. McCant’s potential testimony would have acknowledged Ivory’s involvement in the second and third robberies.
The court highlighted the substantial evidence against Ivory, including Wingster’s testimony, cell-site data, and McCant’s phone call to Ivory’s mother.
The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying an evidentiary hearing for Ivory’s claims because the record showed that he was not entitled to relief.