United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. John Arel Thibeault, Defendant-appellant, 24 F.3d 252 (9th Cir. 1994)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 24 F.3d 252 (9th Cir. 1994) Submitted April 20, 1994. *Decided April 21, 1994

Before: POOLE, BEEZER, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM** 

John Thibeault appeals his sentence in the district court following his plea of guilty to one count of bank robbery. Mr. Thibeault argues the district court erred in adjusting his base offense level upward for reckless endangerment during flight pursuant to U.S.S.G. Sec. 3C1.2.

Mr. Thibeault does not dispute that during his arrest he rammed two police cars in an attempt to elude capture and that this behavior endangered the safety of the officers. Instead he argues that this action was not taken during flight from the bank robbery. We agree.

Section 3C1.2 of the Sentencing Guidelines provides for a two level increase " [i]f the defendant recklessly created a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to another person in the course of fleeing from a law enforcement officer." Thibeault did create such a risk in the course of fleeing from a law enforcement officer. This behavior, however, is not punishable in sentencing him for the bank robbery unless it "occurred during the commission of the offense of conviction, in preparation for that offense, or in the course of attempting to avoid detection or responsibility for that offense." U.S.S.G. Sec. 1B1.3. The question presented then is whether Mr. Thibeault was attempting to avoid detection or responsibility for the bank robbery when he endangered the safety of the arresting officers.

The record contains no finding of fact of Thibeault's mental state at the time of his reckless conduct. The record, therefore, does not support the two level adjustment for reckless endangerment during flight. We VACATE the sentence and REMAND with directions that the district court make and enter sufficient findings in support of any sentence imposed upon the defendant.

 *

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4

 **

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Circuit Rule 36-3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.