throbber
Appellate Case: 22-5005 Document: 010110892891 Date Filed: 07/24/2023 Page: 1
`FILED
`United States Court of Appeals
`Tenth Circuit
`
`July 24, 2023
`
`Christopher M. Wolpert
`Clerk of Court
`
`PUBLISH
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`
`FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
`_________________________________
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`
` Plaintiff - Appellee,
`
`v.
`
`AMANDA LYN WALKER,
`
` Defendant - Appellant.
`_________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`No. 22-5005
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`
` Plaintiff - Appellee,
`
`v.
`
`CRAIG ALAN MORRISON, a/k/a Craig
`Allen Morrison,
`
` Defendant - Appellant.
`_________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`No. 22-5014
`
`Appeals from the United States District Court
`for the Northern District of Oklahoma
`(D.C. No. 4:20-CR-00196-JFH-2)
`(D.C. No. 4:20-CR-00196-JFH-1)
`_________________________________
`
`Katayoun A. Donnelly, Azizpour Donnelly LLC, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant –
`Appellant Amanda Lyn Walker.
`
`John C. Arceci, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Office of the Federal Public Defender
`(Virginia L. Grady, Federal Public Defender, with him on the briefs), Denver, Colorado,
`for Defendant – Appellant Craig Alan Morrison.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Appellate Case: 22-5005 Document: 010110892891 Date Filed: 07/24/2023 Page: 2
`
`Chantelle Dial, Assistant United States Attorney (Clinton J. Johnson, United States
`Attorney, with her on the briefs), Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff – Appellee.
`_________________________________
`
`Before HARTZ, McHUGH, and CARSON, Circuit Judges.
`_________________________________
`
`McHUGH, Circuit Judge.
`_________________________________
`
`Craig Alan Morrison and Amanda Lyn Walker brought Ms. Walker’s three-
`
`year-old son, R.T., to the emergency room and told doctors that R.T. had jumped off
`
`his bed and hit his head on his scooter. After examining R.T., doctors discovered
`
`bruising across most of R.T.’s body, internal bleeding, and severe injuries to R.T.’s
`
`internal organs—injuries the doctors determined did not line up with Mr. Morrison’s
`
`and Ms. Walker’s story. The doctors contacted the police, who initiated a child abuse
`
`investigation, ultimately leading to a grand jury indictment of Mr. Morrison for two
`
`counts of child abuse, under the Assimilated Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 13, and Okla.
`
`Stat. tit. 21, § 843.5(A) (2019), and of Ms. Walker for two counts of enabling child
`
`abuse, under the Assimilated Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 13, and Okla. Stat. tit. 21,
`
`§ 843.5(B) (2019). Mr. Morrison and Ms. Walker were indicted under the
`
`Assimilated Crimes Act because R.T. is an Indian and the offense conduct took place
`
`within the boundaries of the Muscogee (Creek) Reservation. They were tried in a
`
`joint trial and the jury returned guilty verdicts on all four counts. In separate
`
`sentencing proceedings, the district court granted the Government’s motions for
`
`upward variances from United States Sentencing Guidelines sentences for both
`
`Mr. Morrison and Ms. Walker. The district court sentenced Mr. Morrison to a
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Appellate Case: 22-5005 Document: 010110892891 Date Filed: 07/24/2023 Page: 3
`
`300-month term of imprisonment, 195 months greater than the high end of his
`
`Guidelines range, and Ms. Walker to 120 months in prison, 63 months over the high
`
`end of her Guidelines range.
`
`Mr. Morrison and Ms. Walker filed separate appeals, collectively raising ten
`
`challenges to their convictions and sentences. Because Mr. Morrison and Ms. Walker
`
`were tried in one trial, and each joins several of the other’s arguments on appeal, we
`
`address their appeals together. Determining none of their arguments are meritorious,
`
`we affirm Mr. Morrison’s and Ms. Walker’s convictions and sentences.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`Factual Background1
`
`In July 2019, Mr. Morrison and Ms. Walker began a romantic relationship.
`
`Within a week, Mr. Morrison moved into Ms. Walker’s home where Ms. Walker’s
`
`adult daughter, Katana Partain; Ms. Partain’s boyfriend, John Webb; Ms. Partain’s
`
`minor daughter; Ms. Walker’s minor daughter, M.L.; and Ms. Walker’s two-year-old
`
`son, R.T., were also living. Not long after moving in, Mr. Morrison became involved
`
`with raising R.T.—potty training R.T., helping R.T. to transition to sleep in his own
`
`bed, and transitioning R.T. from bottles to sippy cups.
`
`
`1 All facts are drawn from evidence presented at Mr. Morrison’s and
`Ms. Walker’s joint trial. Where there was conflicting testimony, we recite the facts
`based on the evidence most favorable to the jury’s verdict. See United States v.
`Espinoza, 338 F.3d 1140, 1146–47 (10th Cir. 2003).
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Appellate Case: 22-5005 Document: 010110892891 Date Filed: 07/24/2023 Page: 4
`
`On one occasion, in August 2019, Mr. Morrison wanted R.T. to eat pizza, but
`
`R.T. was resisting. Mr. Morrison shoved the pizza into R.T.’s mouth, causing R.T. to
`
`choke and cry. Ms. Partain yelled at Mr. Morrison to stop. Ms. Walker saw
`
`Mr. Morrison shoving the pizza into R.T.’s mouth while R.T. was choking and
`
`crying, but she went to her room and closed the door. When Ms. Partain checked on
`
`Ms. Walker, Ms. Walker explained that she did not want to hear R.T. crying.
`
`Ms. Partain, Mr. Webb, and Ms. Partain’s minor child moved out of Ms. Walker’s
`
`home in late September 2019.
`
`Mr. Morrison lost his job in December 2019 and became more involved in
`
`R.T.’s care while Ms. Walker was working. Around this time, R.T. came to
`
`Ms. Partain’s house and she noticed a dark handprint-shaped bruise on R.T.’s face
`
`and small bruises on R.T.’s buttocks. Ms. Partain took pictures of the bruises and
`
`sent them to Ms. Walker, asking Ms. Walker about R.T.’s injuries. Ms. Walker told
`
`Ms. Partain the handprint-shaped bruise on R.T.’s face was the result of
`
`Mr. Morrison unintentionally slapping R.T. while Mr. Morrison was having a night
`
`terror and the bruising on R.T.’s buttocks was caused by him falling off his bed.
`
`During this same period, Mr. Morrison’s cousin, Misty Dawn Hill, regularly
`
`spoke with Mr. Morrison. On one occasion, Mr. Morrison told Ms. Hill that he “made
`
`[R.T.] a man-sized peanut butter and jelly sandwich, and that [R.T.] wasn’t eating it
`
`so he sent him to lay down. And he heard the child choking and he immediately ran
`
`and got him up.” Morrison ROA Vol. III at 210. Mr. Morrison told Ms. Hill that he
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Appellate Case: 22-5005 Document: 010110892891 Date Filed: 07/24/2023 Page: 5
`
`was frustrated by R.T.’s frequent crying and “that he would give the child something
`
`to cry about.” Id. at 211.
`
`In February 2020, Mr. Morrison and Ms. Walker brought R.T. to the
`
`emergency room, informing the doctors R.T. had hurt himself jumping from his bed
`
`and falling onto his scooter. Upon examination, the hospital discovered R.T. had
`
`many severe external and internal injuries that could not be explained by R.T.
`
`jumping off his bed. The hospital took photographs of R.T.’s injuries and contacted
`
`the Tulsa police. Officers came to the hospital, took statements from Mr. Morrison
`
`and Ms. Walker, and photographed R.T.’s injuries. Mr. Morrison and Ms. Walker
`
`denied having harmed R.T. or having knowledge of any other person harming him.
`
`The responding officers referred the case to a child crisis detective, William Hays, to
`
`investigate.
`
`The following morning, Dr. Christine Beeson, a pediatric physician
`
`completing a child abuse fellowship, examined R.T. Dr. Beeson’s examination
`
`revealed extensive injuries including blunt force trauma injuries to R.T.’s liver and
`
`pancreas, muscle damage, injury to R.T.’s kidneys, severe bruising on R.T.’s
`
`buttocks and going down his leg, bruises on the inside and outside of both of his ears,
`
`his right and left cheeks and jawlines, his right forearm, his right shoulder, his
`
`shoulder blade and upper back, and the back of his ribcage. CT scans revealed that
`
`R.T. had a frontal hematoma, a hematoma around his right adrenal gland, and
`
`extensive internal bleeding. Dr. Beeson took additional photographs of R.T. when she
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Appellate Case: 22-5005 Document: 010110892891 Date Filed: 07/24/2023 Page: 6
`
`completed the examination. Based on her examination of R.T., Dr. Beeson concluded
`
`R.T. suffered “[c]hild physical abuse.” Id. at 341.
`
`While examining R.T., Dr. Beeson spoke with Ms. Walker about R.T.’s
`
`history. Ms. Walker informed Dr. Beeson that R.T. had “a two or three month history
`
`of easy bruising that she had noticed, and she was worried about leukemia.” Id. at
`
`318. Reviewing R.T.’s blood work and labs, Dr. Beeson determined R.T. did not
`
`have a bleeding disorder or condition that would cause easy bruising. That same day,
`
`Detective Hays interviewed Ms. Walker and Mr. Morrison. Ms. Walker told
`
`Detective Hays that prior to taking R.T. to the hospital, she had been at work until the
`
`afternoon and R.T. had been with Mr. Morrison. Ms. Walker further stated that when
`
`she got home from work in the afternoon, she saw R.T. running around naked and did
`
`not see any injuries or bruises on him. Ms. Walker explained she took R.T. to the
`
`hospital after hearing a crash from R.T.’s bedroom and noticing an injury to his head.
`
`Mr. Morrison told Detective Hays the same story. When Detective Hays asked about
`
`R.T.’s extensive bruising that did not seem consistent with their story, both
`
`Mr. Morrison and Ms. Walker stated they had not seen it. Ms. Walker minimized
`
`R.T.’s injuries when speaking to Detective Hays, stating they were not the result of
`
`abuse but “were just normal injuries and that [R.T.] gets these all the time.” Id. at
`
`231.
`
`R.T. remained hospitalized for a total of four days. The week after R.T. was
`
`hospitalized, Ms. Walker asked Ms. Partain not to tell the police about the incident
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Appellate Case: 22-5005 Document: 010110892891 Date Filed: 07/24/2023 Page: 7
`
`where Mr. Morrison force-fed R.T. pizza or where Mr. Morrison hit R.T. during a
`
`night terror.
`
`B.
`
`Procedural Background
`
`1.
`
`Indictment and Trial
`
`The state of Oklahoma arrested Mr. Morrison and Ms. Walker and charged
`
`them with child abuse offenses in March 2020. Following the Supreme Court’s
`
`decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), Oklahoma dismissed the
`
`charges for lack of jurisdiction because the victim in the case, R.T., is an Indian and
`
`the offense conduct occurred in Tulsa, within the boundaries of the Muscogee
`
`(Creek) Reservation.2 See McGirt, 140 S. Ct. at 2468 (holding Congress never
`
`disestablished the Muscogee (Creek) Reservation). A federal grand jury indicted
`
`Mr. Morrison and Ms. Walker under the Assimilated Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 13,
`
`charging Mr. Morrison with one count of child abuse, in violation of Okla. Stat. tit.
`
`21, § 843.5(A), and Ms. Walker with one count of enabling child abuse, in violation
`
`of Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 843.5(B), based on R.T.’s February 2020 injuries. In a
`
`superseding indictment, the grand jury charged Mr. Morrison with two counts of
`
`
`2 Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, 142 S.
`Ct. 2486 (2022), there was a general belief that Oklahoma lacked jurisdiction over
`crimes committed by Indians or against Indians in Indian country. See McGirt v.
`Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452, 2479 (2020) (“States are . . . free to apply their criminal
`laws in cases of non-Indian victims and defendants, including within Indian
`country.”). However, in Castro-Huerta, the Supreme Court recognized Oklahoma has
`concurrent jurisdiction over crimes committed by non-Indians against Indians in
`Indian country. See Castro-Huerta, 142 S. Ct. at 2491.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Appellate Case: 22-5005 Document: 010110892891 Date Filed: 07/24/2023 Page: 8
`
`child abuse and Ms. Walker with two counts of enabling child abuse, adding separate
`
`counts based on the handprint-shaped bruise documented by Ms. Partain on R.T.’s
`
`face in December 2019. The criminal information sheets filed with the superseding
`
`indictment listed all four counts as felonies and stated the maximum penalty for each
`
`count was life imprisonment.
`
`Prior to trial, the Government offered plea deals to Ms. Walker and
`
`Mr. Morrison. Specifically, the Government offered Mr. Morrison a deal under which
`
`he would plead guilty to one count of child abuse, the February 2020 incident, and
`
`receive a sentence of ten years. The Government offered Ms. Walker a deal under
`
`which she would plead guilty to one count of enabling child abuse, based on the
`
`February 2020 incident, and receive a three-year sentence. Both Ms. Walker and
`
`Mr. Morrison rejected the offers. Also, before the trial, Ms. Walker and Mr. Morrison
`
`jointly proposed jury instructions asking the jury to determine whether their conduct
`
`for each count constituted a misdemeanor or felony.
`
`Over the course of a three-day trial, the Government elicited testimony from
`
`Michael Scott Dean, a Tulsa police officer who photographed R.T. and took
`
`statements from Mr. Morrison and Ms. Walker the night they took R.T. to the
`
`hospital; a hospital employee who confirmed that pictures of R.T. the Government
`
`submitted as evidence were from R.T.’s medical record; Kelsey Hess, a forensic
`
`interviewer who attempted to interview R.T; R.T.’s biological father, Dennis
`
`Tooamhimpah; Mr. Webb, Ms. Partain’s boyfriend; Ms. Partain, Ms. Walker’s adult
`
`daughter; Ms. Hill, Mr. Morrison’s cousin; Detective Hays, the detective who
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`Appellate Case: 22-5005 Document: 010110892891 Date Filed: 07/24/2023 Page: 9
`
`investigated the case; and Dr. Beeson, the child abuse specialist who evaluated R.T.
`
`As part of its case-in-chief, the Government also presented photos taken by
`
`Ms. Partain of R.T.’s December 2019 injuries, the written statements Ms. Walker and
`
`Mr. Morrison gave to Officer Dean the night they brought R.T. to the hospital, a
`
`video of the forensic interview Ms. Hess conducted with R.T., videos of interviews
`
`Detective Hays conducted with Mr. Morrison and Ms. Walker, photos of R.T.’s
`
`February 2020 injuries taken by the hospital, photos of R.T.’s February 2020 injuries
`
`taken by Officer Dean, and photos of R.T.’s February 2020 injuries taken by
`
`Dr. Beeson. Following the completion of the Government’s case-in-chief, both
`
`Mr. Morrison and Ms. Walker moved for judgments of acquittal under Federal Rule
`
`of Criminal Procedure 29; the district court denied their motions. Mr. Morrison then
`
`rested his case. Ms. Walker called her minor daughter, M.L., as a witness, and also
`
`testified in her own defense.
`
`Prior to instructing the jury, the district court asked the Government,
`
`Mr. Morrison, and Ms. Walker if any party had any objections to the proposed
`
`instructions. They did not. The jury returned a guilty verdict against Mr. Morrison on
`
`both counts of child abuse and against Ms. Walker on both counts of enabling child
`
`abuse.
`
`2. Ms. Walker’s Sentencing Proceedings
`
`Following Ms. Walker’s conviction, the United States Probation Office
`
`prepared a Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”). The PSR determined there was
`
`no directly applicable Guideline for Ms. Walker’s enabling child abuse conviction,
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`Appellate Case: 22-5005 Document: 010110892891 Date Filed: 07/24/2023 Page: 10
`
`but that the most analogous Guideline was §2A2.2, which set a base offense level of
`
`14 for aggravated assault offenses. The PSR applied three offense level
`
`enhancements: (1) a seven-level enhancement under §2A2.2(b)(3)(C) due to R.T.
`
`sustaining permanent or life-threatening bodily injury, (2) a two-level enhancement
`
`based on R.T. being a vulnerable victim under §3A1.1(b)(1), and (3) a two-level
`
`enhancement under §3A1.3 based on R.T. having been physically restrained in the
`
`course of the offense. The PSR also applied a two-level deduction under §3B1.2 due
`
`to Ms. Walker being a minor participant in the underlying offense, resulting in a total
`
`offense level of twenty-three. Based on Ms. Walker’s total offense level of twenty-
`
`three and criminal history category of I, her Guidelines range was 46 to 57 months.
`
`The PSR stated the Probation Office had identified no factor warranting a departure
`
`or variance from a Guidelines sentence.
`
`Ms. Walker objected to both the seven-level enhancement based on R.T.
`
`having sustained a permanent or life-threatening bodily injury and the two-level
`
`enhancement based on R.T. having been physically restrained, arguing neither of
`
`these enhancements were supported by sufficient evidence. The Probation Office
`
`overruled Ms. Walker’s objections. The Government submitted a motion for an
`
`upward variance to a term of 120 months, contending the Guidelines range did not
`
`sufficiently account for the harm done to R.T. The Government analogized to 18
`
`U.S.C. § 3559(f), a federal sentencing statute that was not charged in Ms. Walker’s
`
`case, noting the statute required a ten-year minimum sentence for any crime of
`
`violence resulting in serious bodily harm to a child. Ms. Walker submitted a motion
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`Appellate Case: 22-5005 Document: 010110892891 Date Filed: 07/24/2023 Page: 11
`
`for a downward variance from a Guidelines sentence, requesting that she receive a
`
`term of probation rather than imprisonment. Ms. Walker argued a downward variance
`
`was appropriate based on the § 3553(a) factors because she had accepted
`
`responsibility for her role in R.T.’s injuries, played a minor role in the offense, had
`
`attended parenting classes, and was a productive member of society with gainful
`
`employment. Prior to sentencing, the district court informed Ms. Walker and the
`
`Government that it was considering an upward variance from the Guidelines range
`
`set out in the PSR based on the § 3553(a) factors.
`
`At Ms. Walker’s sentencing hearing, the court heard a victim impact statement
`
`from R.T.’s father, Mr. Tooahimpah, and R.T.’s assigned guardian ad litem.
`
`Mr. Tooahimpah requested that Ms. Walker receive the maximum sentence possible
`
`based on the suffering she caused R.T. Mr. Tooahimpah told the court that when R.T.
`
`came to live with him, he “was broke[n] emotionally and physically.” Walker ROA
`
`Vol. III at 570. R.T.’s guardian ad litem informed the court that R.T. was going to
`
`“need significant and ongoing counseling for many, many years” explaining that
`
`although R.T.’s bruises had healed, he would have to cope with the trauma he
`
`suffered for a long time. Id. at 574.
`
`Ms. Walker argued the seven-point enhancement in the PSR was not warranted
`
`as no testimony at trial demonstrated R.T. suffered permanent or life-threatening
`
`injuries. Ms. Walker also argued against the two-level enhancement based on R.T.
`
`having been physically restrained, stating that only Ms. Partain testified at trial that
`
`Ms. Walker was present when Mr. Morrison forced R.T. to eat pizza, while other
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`Appellate Case: 22-5005 Document: 010110892891 Date Filed: 07/24/2023 Page: 12
`
`witnesses stated Ms. Walker was not present during the incident. The court overruled
`
`Ms. Walker’s objections to both enhancements, determining Dr. Beeson’s testimony
`
`demonstrated R.T. suffered life-threatening injuries and Ms. Partain’s testimony was
`
`sufficient to show Ms. Walker was present when Mr. Morrison force fed R.T.
`
`The court then turned to the § 3553(a) factors. The Government argued an
`
`upward variance was warranted because Ms. Walker was an experienced mother,
`
`suffered no abuse or threats from Mr. Morrison, Ms. Walker enabled the abuse of
`
`R.T. over several months, and Ms. Walker never cooperated with the Government’s
`
`investigation, choosing to defend Mr. Morrison rather than R.T. Following the
`
`Government’s argument, Ms. Walker informed the court she was no longer seeking a
`
`downward variance and instead, asked the court to impose a Guidelines sentence. The
`
`court agreed with the PSR’s finding that the Guideline addressing aggravated assault
`
`was the most analogous Guideline, but determined the Guideline failed to fully
`
`account for the severity of Ms. Walker’s crime. The court concluded that evidence
`
`adduced at trial and the victim impact statements at the sentencing hearing
`
`demonstrated Ms. Walker allowed Mr. Morrison to move into her home with R.T.
`
`just a few days after they started dating, witnessed Mr. Morrison act aggressively
`
`with R.T. shortly after he moved in and left the room, continued to leave R.T. in
`
`Mr. Morrison’s care, explained away suspicious bruises and marks on R.T., and
`
`continued to cover for Mr. Morrison during the investigation. The court also noted
`
`that the multitude of injuries identified by Dr. Beeson at the trial demonstrated R.T.’s
`
`abuse had been ongoing, as opposed to a single incident. The court agreed with the
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`Appellate Case: 22-5005 Document: 010110892891 Date Filed: 07/24/2023 Page: 13
`
`Government that 18 U.S.C. § 3559(f), a federal statute setting a minimum mandatory
`
`sentence of ten years for crimes of violence against children causing serious bodily
`
`injuries, was analogous to the criminal conduct here. The court then stated, “An
`
`upward variance in this matter will adequately reflect the seriousness of the offense,
`
`provide just punishment, afford deterrence to further criminal conduct, and protect
`
`the public from further crimes by this defendant. Therefore the motion—the
`
`government’s motion [for an upward variance] is granted.” Id. at 593.
`
`The court then asked Ms. Walker if she wanted to make a statement, and
`
`Ms. Walker took the opportunity to allocute. Ms. Walker asked the court to give her a
`
`Guidelines sentence, explaining that she now recognized the mistake she had made
`
`letting Mr. Morrison into her life, that she had never previously been in trouble with
`
`the law, that she had been taking parenting classes, and that she wanted to be present
`
`in her children’s lives. The court proceeded to sentence Ms. Walker to two sentences
`
`of 120 months’ imprisonment that would run concurrently.
`
`3. Mr. Morrison’s Sentencing
`
`Like Ms. Walker’s PSR, Mr. Morrison’s PSR determined the most analogous
`
`Guideline to child abuse was USSG §2A2.2, the Guideline for aggravated assault
`
`offenses. The PSR also added the same offense level enhancements as were added for
`
`Ms. Walker—a seven-level enhancement based on USSG §2A2.2(b)(3)(C) because
`
`R.T. “sustained permanent or life-threatening bodily injury,” Morrison ROA Vol. V
`
`at 6; a two-level enhancement pursuant to USSG §3A1.1(b)(1) because R.T. was a
`
`vulnerable victim; and a two-level enhancement based on USSG §3A1.3 because
`13
`
`
`
`

`

`Appellate Case: 22-5005 Document: 010110892891 Date Filed: 07/24/2023 Page: 14
`
`R.T. “was physically restrained in the course of the offense,” id. at 7. In support of
`
`the two-level enhancement under §3A1.3, the PSR noted “[Mr.] Morrison restrained
`
`R.T. while he choked him with pizza, hotdogs, or sandwiches on various occasions.”
`
`Id. at 7. With a base offense level of 14, and the three enhancements, the PSR
`
`calculated an adjusted offense level of 25. The PSR calculated a total criminal history
`
`score of 7, establishing a criminal history category of IV, based on Mr. Morrison’s
`
`prior convictions for domestic assault and battery by strangulation, violation of
`
`protective order, conspiracy to manufacture controlled drugs, unlawful possession of
`
`methamphetamine, and possession or selling paraphernalia. Based on his total offense
`
`level of 25 and criminal history category of IV, the PSR stated the Guidelines range
`
`was 84 to 105 months. The PSR noted the Probation Office had identified no basis
`
`for a departure or variance from a Guidelines sentence.
`
`As with Ms. Walker, the Government submitted a motion for an upward
`
`variance from a Guidelines sentence pursuant to the § 3553(a) factors. The
`
`Government argued that, although USSG §2A2.2 was the most analogous Guideline,
`
`a variance was necessary because §2A2.2 applied to aggravated assault generally and
`
`did not adequately “address the harms of child abuse.” Morrison ROA Vol. II at 35.
`
`The Government posited 18 U.S.C. § 3559(f), which sets a twenty-five-year
`
`mandatory minimum sentence if a defendant is convicted of kidnapping or maiming a
`
`child and a ten-year mandatory minimum sentence where a defendant is convicted for
`
`a crime of violence resulting in serious bodily injury to a child, demonstrates how the
`
`aggravated assault Guideline does not align with the accountability Congress has
`14
`
`
`
`

`

`Appellate Case: 22-5005 Document: 010110892891 Date Filed: 07/24/2023 Page: 15
`
`imposed in child abuse cases. The Government also noted other federal statutes that
`
`impose high mandatory minimums for crimes against children. Applying the
`
`§ 3553(a) factors, the Government argued the nature and circumstances of the
`
`offense; Mr. Morrison’s history and characteristics; and the need for the sentence
`
`imposed to reflect the seriousness of the crime, promote respect for the law, and
`
`provide just punishment for the offense, justified an upward variance to a 300-month
`
`term.
`
`Mr. Morrison objected to the seven-level special offense characteristic and
`
`two-level victim related adjustment enhancements in the PSR. Regarding the seven-
`
`level enhancement pursuant to §2A2.2(b)(3)(C), Mr. Morrison argued there was
`
`insufficient evidence presented at trial for the court to determine that R.T. had
`
`sustained permanent or life-threatening injuries. Challenging the two-level
`
`enhancement under §3A1.3, Mr. Morrison argued there was insufficient evidence to
`
`establish that Mr. Morrison had physically restrained R.T. in the course of the
`
`offense. Mr. Morrison also objected to the proposed upward variance, arguing the
`
`Government was attempting to impose a trial penalty based on Mr. Morrison’s choice
`
`not to accept its plea offer. In support of his argument, Mr. Morrison noted that the
`
`Government had agreed to lower sentences, ranging from two years to twenty years’
`
`imprisonment, in similar cases also involving heinous child abuse offenses where the
`
`Government had reached plea agreements with the defendants. Prior to
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Appellate Case: 22-5005 Document: 010110892891 Date Filed: 07/24/2023 Page: 16
`
`Mr. Morrison’s sentencing hearing, the district court informed both parties that the
`
`court was considering an upward variance from a Guidelines sentence.
`
`At the sentencing hearing, the court again heard testimony from
`
`Mr. Tooahimpah and R.T.’s guardian ad litem. Mr. Tooahimpah testified that R.T.
`
`“was broken emotionally and physically” when he came to live with him, hid from
`
`others, and struggled to communicate, make eye contact, or show emotion. Morrison
`
`ROA Vol. III at 16. Mr. Tooahimpah stated he “would like to see [Mr. Morrison] get
`
`the max sentencing” as “[t]here [was] no amount of time or punishment that could
`
`justify the abuse [R.T.] endured.” Id. at 20. R.T.’s guardian ad litem testified that
`
`R.T. would potentially need life-long counseling to cope with the trauma he endured.
`
`Addressing Mr. Morrison’s objections to the PSR, the court overruled his
`
`objection to the seven-level enhancement under §2A2.2(b)(3)(C), determining
`
`Dr. Beeson’s testimony at the trial provided sufficient evidence that R.T.’s injuries
`
`were life-threatening. Next, after reviewing the definition of “physically restrained”
`
`under §1B1.1, comment note 1(L), and Tenth Circuit caselaw interpreting that
`
`definition, the court determined Mr. Morrison’s act of holding R.T. while force
`
`feeding him pizza satisfied the definition, and it overruled Mr. Morrison’s objection
`
`to the application of §3A1.3. Ultimately, the court adopted the PSR in full.
`
`Addressing the § 3553(a) factors, Mr. Morrison argued there was no need to depart
`
`from a Guidelines sentence as his case was not abnormal and that in cases involving
`
`similar conduct the Government had agreed in plea agreements to significantly lower
`
`sentences than it requested for Mr. Morrison. The district court judge noted he had
`16
`
`
`
`

`

`Appellate Case: 22-5005 Document: 010110892891 Date Filed: 07/24/2023 Page: 17
`
`reviewed the cases Mr. Morrison had cited where similar offenses resulted in lower
`
`prison terms through plea agreements but that he could speak to only one of the
`
`cases, where he was the sentencing judge. The district court judge explained that, in
`
`that case, he had agreed to a twenty-year sentence only because there was an
`
`acceptance of responsibility and a request from the victim’s family for the court to
`
`accept the plea agreement. The court then noted that although the aggravated assault
`
`Guideline was the most analogous to Mr. Morrison’s crimes, Mr. Morrison’s “case
`
`show[ed] how inappropriate a strict application of the aggravated assault guideline
`
`would be to address the harms of child abuse.” Id. at 36.
`
`The court proceeded to assess the § 3553(a) factors in relation to
`
`Mr. Morrison’s case. First, the court determined “[t]he nature and circumstances of
`
`the offenses” were “grave” considering the pattern of abuse adduced by testimony at
`
`the trial and the severity of R.T.’s injuries. Id. at 36–37. The court further determined
`
`Mr. Morrison’s “history and characteristics” supported an upward variance because
`
`of Mr. Morrison’s “prior conviction for a domestic assault and battery by
`
`strangulation.” Id. at 37. The court noted Mr. Morrison’s prior domestic violence
`
`conviction, which resulted in him being incarcerated, had not deterred him from
`
`continuing to act with escalating violence towards a more vulnerable victim. Finally,
`
`addressing the possibility of disparities between sentences, the court noted “that strict
`
`application of the guideline provisions to assimilated crimes would cause, rather than
`
`mitigate, disparity between [Mr. Morrison] and other defendants with similar
`
`records.” Id. at 38. The court determined the Government’s analogy to the minimum
`17
`
`
`
`

`

`Appellate Case: 22-5005 Document: 010110892891 Date Filed: 07/24/2023 Page: 18
`
`sentences under 18 U.S.C. § 3559(f) was persuasive and showed “that Congress gives
`
`great weight to consequences for committing a violent crime against a child.” Id. at
`
`38. Determining a Guidelines sentence would be “woefully inadequate,” the court
`
`“f[ound] that an upward variance [was] warranted in [Mr. Morrisons’] case” and
`
`stated “the [G]overnment’s motion will be granted in terms of a request for an
`
`upward variance.” Id. at 39. After stating it was granting the Government’s motion
`
`for an upward variance, the district court gave Mr. Morrison the opportunity to
`
`allocute. Mr. Morrison declined to address the court. The court then sentenced
`
`Mr. Morrison to 300 months’ imprisonment.
`
`4.
`
`Appeals
`
`Mr. Morrison and Ms. Walker timely filed notices of appeal. On appeal,
`
`Ms. Walker raises five challenges to her conviction, two of which are joined by
`
`Mr. Morrison. She also raises one challenge to her sentence. Mr. Morrison raises four
`
`challenges to his sentence, all of which Ms. Walker joins.
`
`First, Ms. Walker, joined by Mr. Morrison, argues under plain error review
`
`that Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 843.5(B) is unconstitutionally vague, stating the statute does
`
`not set any standard or element to distinguish between misdemeanor and felony
`
`offenses. In his notice of joinder, Mr. Morrison contends the same argument applies
`
`equally to his statute of conviction, Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 843.5(A). Second and
`
`relatedly, Ms. Walker, joined by Mr. Morrison, argues the district court plainly erred
`
`by not adopting their proposed instructions asking the jury to determine whether
`
`Ms. Walker’s and Mr. Morrison’s conduct constituted misdemeanor or felony
`18
`
`
`
`

`

`Appellate Case: 22-5005 Document: 010110892891 Date Filed: 07/24/2023 Page: 19
`
`offenses. Third, Ms. Walker asserts the district court plainly erred by failing to
`
`instruct the jury about two exceptions to child abuse listed under Okla. Stat. tit. 10A,
`
`§ 1-1-105(2) (2019), accidental harm and the ordinary use of force as a means of
`
`discipline. Fourth, Ms. Walker contends the district court erred in denying her motion
`
`for acquittal because the Government presented insufficient evidence to satisfy the
`
`knowledge element necessary for conviction under § 843.5(B). Fifth, Ms. Walker
`
`argues the district court’s cumulative e

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket