Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03716/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03716-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael William Shranklen
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

*

The Honorable Richard W. Goldberg, Judge of the United States Court of

International Trade, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3716

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Southern

v. * District of Iowa.

*

Michael William Shranklen, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 11, 2004

Filed: May 17, 2004

___________

Before MURPHY and FAGG, Circuit Judges, and GOLDBERG,*

 Judge of the United

States Court of International Trade.

___________

PER CURIAM.

An Altoona, Iowa police officer stopped a vehicle driven by Michael William

Shranklen for failing to display a proper license plate. After the officer determined

neither Shranklen nor his passenger had a valid driver’s license, the officer informed

them he was going to impound the vehicle. The officer put Shranklen and the

passenger in his squad car, and asked whether they needed anything from the car

Appellate Case: 03-3716 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/17/2004 Entry ID: 1767867 
**The Honorable Harold D. Vietor, United States District Judge for the

Southern District of Iowa. 

-2-

before it was impounded. Shranklen asked for his house keys on his car’s console.

One of the keys found by the officer was a Sentry that belonged to a fire safe in

Shranklen’s home. The passenger asked for his fanny pack from underneath the car’s

passenger seat. Concerned that it might contain a weapon, the officer looked inside

and found used syringes, other drug paraphernalia, and a Sentry key matching

Shranklen’s key. Officers also found methamphetamine in the trunk of Shranklen’s

car. The officers returned to the patrol car and informed Shranklen and his passenger

that they were under arrest for possession of methamphetamine. Shranklen’s

passenger immediately stated the drugs belonged to him, and Shranklen stated he did

not know any drugs were there. The officers later obtained a warrant to search

Shranklen’s house and found more drugs, including some in a stereo speaker and

some in a safe opened with the Sentry keys. The Government charged Shranklen and

his passenger with drug offenses. The passenger met with the Government to discuss

a proffer agreement and told officers that he borrowed Shranklen’s car on the day of

the arrest, used it to pick up 343 grams of methamphetamine, placed the drugs inside

a car speaker, and placed the speaker in Shranklen’s bedroom. Later that night, the

passenger met with Shranklen, the officer stopped them, and they were arrested. 

After we concluded the search of the fanny pack was reasonable to protect the

officers’ safety, United States v. Shranklen, 315 F.3d 959 (8th Cir. 2003), Shranklen

and his passenger were tried. Shranklen learned of the proffer agreement in the

middle of the trial. The passenger testified he had not brought any drugs to

Shranklen’s residence, and the Government and Shranklen used the proffer agreement

to impeach the passenger’s testimony during cross-examination. A jury convicted

Shranklen and his passenger of conspiracy to distribute at least fifty grams of

methamphetamine. The district court** sentenced Shranklen to 240 months in prison.

Appellate Case: 03-3716 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/17/2004 Entry ID: 1767867 
-3-

On appeal, Shranklen contends the government violated his rights under Brady

v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), when it failed to inform him of the proffer made by

his passenger. Because the evidence was disclosed during the trial, there was no

Brady violation. United States v. Greatwalker, 356 F.3d 908, 912 (8th Cir. 2004).

Shranklen has not identified any testimony or evidence relating to the proffer that he

could not produce at trial. Indeed, Shranklen was given an opportunity to recall

witnesses after obtaining the information, but did not do so. There is not a reasonable

probability the trial’s outcome would have differed had the proffer been disclosed

earlier. See id. 

Shranklen also argues the district court committed error in denying his motion

for a mistrial based on the admission of a conversation Shranklen and his passenger

had while in the backseat of the squad car. According to the passenger, Shranklen

asked him to say all the drugs were his because Shranklen had “been in jail twice

before.” Trial Trans. at 329. The passenger also testified Shranklen offered to “take

care of him” if he took responsibility for the drugs. Id. The district court did not

abuse its discretion in denying Shranklen’s motion. See United States v. Gutierrez,

351 F.3d 897, 902 (8th Cir. 2003). Although evidence of earlier crimes is not

admissible to prove character to show action in conformity, the evidence is admissible

for other purposes. Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). The court did not abuse its discretion in

admitting the nonspecific evidence of Shranklen’s earlier offenses because the

evidence showed the reason for the passenger’s statement that the drugs belonged to

him. The district court could reasonably find the evidence’s probative value

substantially outweighed its prejudicial effect, a balancing within the court’s broad

discretion. See United States v. Benitez-Meraz, 161 F.3d 1163, 1166 (8th Cir. 1998).

Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying to sever

Shranklen’s case from that of his coconspirator based on the coconspirator’s

testimony about the conversation in the squad car. See United States v. Washington,

Appellate Case: 03-3716 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/17/2004 Entry ID: 1767867 
-4-

318 F.3d 845, 858 (8th Cir. 2003). Shranklen did not show real prejudice to his right

to a fair trial by establishing his defense was irreconcilable with his coconspirator’s

defense. See id. At the time Shranklen’s passenger made the statement to the police

officers, the drugs in Shranklen’s residence had not been found yet. Thus, there was

substantial evidence against Shranklen outside of the drugs found in the car. 

Shranklen last contends the evidence was insufficient to convict him.

Shranklen asserts his passenger lived at his house and acted alone in distributing the

methamphetamine. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict

and giving the verdict the benefit of all reasonable inferences, we conclude a

reasonable jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Shranklen conspired

with his passenger to distribute methamphetamine See United States v. Ray, 250 F.3d

596, 600 (8th Cir. 2001). Police found large quantities of drugs in Shranklen’s car

and residence. Even if the passenger was responsible for the drugs found in

Shranklen’s car and the stereo speaker in his home, over fifty grams of

methamphetamine were found in the safe in Shranklen’s bedroom. Shranklen had

a key to the safe. A scale and packaging materials were also found in the house.

Some of the drugs were in bags with markings indicating their weight, and $3000

cash was found with the drugs. Further, Shranklen’s passenger testified he did not

live with Shranklen at the time of the arrest. 

We thus affirm Shranklen’s conviction.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3716 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/17/2004 Entry ID: 1767867