Sentencing memorandum: Joplin career bank robber should spend 105 months in prison

A Joplin man who had only been free for a few months after spending nearly 20 years in prison for robbing two banks, will be sentenced for robbing two more and the government thinks he needs to spend at least 105 months in prison.

The sentencing hearing for Leland Scott Graham, 59, who pleaded guilty August 2 to the July 19, 2021 robbery of Great Southern Bank in Joplin is scheduled for March 1 in U. S. District Court in Springfield.

A sentencing memorandum filed today describes Graham's lengthy criminal history, noting that the only significant time he was not committing crimes was the time he spent in prison:

On July 19, 2021, a white male, later identified as the defendant, Leland Graham, robbed the Great Southern Bank in Joplin, Missouri. To effectuate the robbery, the defendant displayed what appeared to be a handgun to the tellers and threatened to shoot the tellers if they did not cooperate. In total, he stole $24,478.25 from Great Southern Bank. 

Through investigation, law enforcement was able to determine that the defendant was the suspect in the robbery, because several hours before he robbed the bank in Joplin, the defendant had robbed a bank in Louisburg, Kansas. 

On July 20, 2021, Kansas City, Missouri, Police Department located the defendant driving a van in Kansas City, Missouri. When KCPD attempted to conduct a traffic stop on the defendant’s van, the defendant fled from law enforcement. He fled in a reckless manner, reaching speeds as high as 95 miles per hour and driving through residential areas. 

He then stopped the van, jumped out of the van, and fled on foot. While trying to run from the police, he tripped and fell, breaking his arm. He was ultimately taken into custody. 

After he was arrested, the defendant advised officers that he had been on a five-day meth binge and had just taken $50 worth of crack-cocaine before he fled law enforcement. In a post-Miranda interview, the defendant admitted to committing both robberies in Louisburg, Kansas, and in Joplin, Missouri. 

He claimed that, in the Joplin, Missouri, robbery, that he put a black-handled screwdriver in his waistband, lifted it to show the teller, and demanded the money. He confirmed that he put the screwdriver in his waistband so that the tellers would think it was a weapon.

He stated that he used some of the money he stole from the bank to purchase the van that he used to flee from police.

The facts in this case are egregious. The defendant robbed two banks in the same day, using threats of physical violence to effectuate one of the robberies. While there may be some argument that his motivation for robbing the banks was so he would go back to prison, that is contradicted by the defendant’s actions of fleeing from the bank and law enforcement, taking action to avoid being detected by police, and using the stolen money to purchase drugs and a van. 

As such, the Government believes that 105 months is appropriate.  

The defendant’s history and characteristics are the biggest factors in the Government’s recommendation for the high end of the Guidelines. The defendant’s criminal history is poor with multiple convictions for passing bad checks, burglary, and escape from community corrections.  

It is notable that these convictions occurred when the defendant was in his 30’s, and not when he was a young man. Then, in 2003, when he was 39 years old, he committed two robberies, one at the Great Southern Bank in Joplin, Missouri, and the other at the First State Bank of Joplin, in Joplin, Missouri. 

The underlying facts of his 2003 convictions are very similar to the instant offense – the defendant threatened the bank tellers with what appeared to be a deadly weapon to obtain money. He was sentenced to 20 years for those robbery convictions. He was paroled on January 6, 2020. 

Not even 11 months later, the defendant committed a new offense of theft by deception, in which he stole a truck. He was given an opportunity at probation for that offense. Just seven months after he was sentenced for the theft by deception, he committed the robberies in the instant offense. 

The only significant break in the defendant’s criminal activity has been when the defendant is incarcerated. The defendant has demonstrated he is incapable of conforming his behavior to society and he is unable and unwilling to abide by law. He has no issue with physically threatening innocent people to get what he wants, and although he did not physically harm any of the people during any of the four robberies he’s committed, he has certainly succeeded in causing emotional trauma to the tellers and witnesses in the banks he robbed. 

The defendant has a number of aggravators on top of his criminal history. He has a significant substance abuse problem. Due to his incarceration, he has a limited employment history, however, it does appear he received a great deal of vocational training while in prison. It should be noted that, despite appearing to be employable and the vocational training he received, the defendant again turned to crime rather than attempting to earn an honest living. 

In this case, there are very few, if any, mitigators. The defendant’s history and characteristics justifies a significant sentence. Although it is unfortunate that the defendant has spent decades in prison, it is clear that he has chosen to turn to a life of crime over and over again.