MEMPHIS, TN – The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed a 303-month sentence for Malik Motley, who pleaded guilty to robbery and firearm charges after shooting a store clerk in the face during a 2021 robbery in Memphis.
According to the appellate opinion, Motley entered a Dollar General on October 3, 2021, and, after pretending to search for money, pulled a handgun wrapped in toilet paper. He demanded money, pointed the gun at the clerk’s face, and shot her. He then fled the scene with cigars and Halloween candy.
The victim suffered life-altering injuries, including permanent breathing issues requiring a trache and oxygen tank, hearing loss, facial palsy, vertigo, and post-traumatic stress. Motley was arrested two days later after breaking into a vacant home.
Motley pleaded guilty in October 2023 to one count of robbery affecting commerce and one count of use and discharge of a firearm during a violent crime. Although his plea agreement included a recommendation for credit for acceptance of responsibility, the government later withdrew its support due to his post-offense conduct and statements.
At sentencing, the district court considered various factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), including the egregious nature of the offense, the victim’s injuries, and Motley’s history of mental illness, seizures, and violence. The court imposed a high-end sentence of 63 months for the robbery count and varied upward to impose 240 months for the firearm charge, resulting in a total sentence of 303 months.
Motley appealed, arguing the sentence was both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. The Sixth Circuit rejected those arguments, finding the district court properly considered the relevant sentencing factors and justified the upward variance given the severity of the offense and permanent injuries to the victim.
The court also found no unwarranted sentencing disparities and held that Motley’s case fell outside the “heartland” of typical offenses contemplated by the guidelines due to the combination of permanent and life-threatening injuries inflicted. The judgment of the district court was affirmed.
