Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-05027/USCOURTS-ca10-89-05027-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Patricia Alice Starr
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

Fl LED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

Uoited Stites Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

JAN 2- 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

PATRICIA ALICE STARR, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 89-5027 

(D.C. No. 88-CR-085-P) 

(N.D. Okla.) 

Before MOORE, BARRETT, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Defendant-appellant appeals her conviction on one count of 

conspiracy to possess, distribute, and pass counterfeit currency 

in violation of 18 u.s.c. § 371 and one count of transfer of 

counterfeit currency in violation of 18 u.s.c. §§ 47 2 , 473. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-5027 Document: 01019958586 Date Filed: 01/02/1990 Page: 1 
Defendant raises the following issues on appeal: (1) whether the 

trial court erred in admitting a tape recording of a conversation 

between defendant and a codefendant; (2) whether the trial court 

erred in admitting those portions of the tape recording that 

referred to other bad acts by defendant; (3) whether defendant was 

denied effective assistance of counsel; (4) whether sufficient 

evidence was adduced at trial to convict defendant; and (5) 

whether the trial court erred in raising defendant's offense level 

under the federal sentencing guidelines. 

The tape that defendant challenges on appeal was a recording 

of a conversation she had with codefendant Fred Cochran. Mr. 

Cochran, after his arrest on drug charges, gave information to 

Agent Newsom of the United States Secret Service about the 

counterfeiting scheme in which he was involved with defendant. 

Thereafter, Agent Newsom "wired" Mr. Cochran and arranged for him 

to meet with defendant. The tape introduced at trial resulted 

from that meeting. 

Defendant challenges the tape's admission on the grounds that 

Mr. Cochran was acting as a police agent at the time of the 

conversation, and defendant was not informed of or given an 

opportunity to invoke her sixth amendment right to counsel before 

engaging in the conversation. Therefore, she argues, the 

admission of the tape violated her right to counsel. We are not 

persuaded by defendant's argument. She concedes that she was not 

under arrest or indictment at the time of the conversation. 

Therefore, her right to counsel had not yet attached, and the 

admission of the tape was proper. See United States v. Geittmann, 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-5027 Document: 01019958586 Date Filed: 01/02/1990 Page: 2 
733 F.2d 1419, 1425, 1428 (10th Cir. 1984)(taped conversations 

"elicited surreptitiously by the government'' prior to defendant's 

arrest and indictment were "constitutionally valid evidence and 

were properly considered by the court"). 

In addition to challenging the admission of the tape as a 

whole, defendant challenges the admission of those portions of the 

tape that referred to other bad acts, specifically, defendant's 

participation in a scheme to counterfeit medical prescriptions, 

defendant's threat of physical harm to Mr. Cochran, and the 

latter's drug deals. Defendant's counsel did not object to the 

admission of the foregoing bad acts evidence. Absent a proper 

objection, we review the admission only for plain error. See 

Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b); United States v. Mann, 884 F.2d 532, 537 

(10th Cir. 1989). Our review of the record reveals that the 

evidence against defendant was overwhelming. Therefore, the 

admission of the other bad acts evidence was not plain error. 

Defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim is based 

on her counsel's failure to object to the introduction of evidence 

concerning defendant's other bad acts and the prosecutor's 

comments thereon, and to the introduction of the tape recording. 

The United States Supreme Court set forth the standard for judging 

a challenge to a conviction based on counsel's alleged ineffective 

assistance in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). The 

Court held that a "defendant must show that counsel's 

representation fell below an objective standard of 

reasonableness," id. at 688, and that "there is a reasonable 

probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-5027 Document: 01019958586 Date Filed: 01/02/1990 Page: 3 
result of the proceeding would have been different," id. at 694. 

Defendant has failed to meet this standard. 

In evaluating defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the 

evidence to convict her on the two counts, "we consider both the 

direct and 

inferences 

the 

that 

circumstantial 

can be drawn 

evidence, 

therefrom, 

and 

in 

the 

the 

reasonable 

light most 

favorable to the prosecution." United States v. Mann, 884 F.2d at 

534-35. The evidence of defendant's involvement in a conspiracy 

to possess, distribute, and pass counterfeit currency included the 

testimony of her two codefendants plus the tape recording of her 

own incriminating statements. The evidence of defendant's 

transfer of counterfeit currency included the foregoing as well as 

Agent Newsom's testimony connecting defendant to certain 

counterfeit bills admitted into evidence. Our review of the 

evidence leads us to conclude that it was sufficient to support 

defendant's conviction on both counts. 

Defendant's final argument on appeal concerns her sentence. 

She contends that the trial court should not have enhanced her 

offense level, thereby increasing the sentencing range, based on 

§ 3Cl.l of the federal sentencing guidelines. Section 3Cl.l 

provides that the offense level of a crime may be increased by two 

levels "[i]f the defendant willfully impeded or obstructed, or 

attempted to impede or obstruct the administration of justice 

during the investigation or prosecution of the instant offense 

II 

The presentence report calculated defendant's offense level 

as a nineteen, reflecting an upward adjustment of two levels 

4 

Appellate Case: 89-5027 Document: 01019958586 Date Filed: 01/02/1990 Page: 4 
• 

pursuant to§ 3Cl.l. The basis for the adjustment was that 

defendant "made threatening statements to her codefendant who was 

cooperating with the government •..• " (R. Supp. Vol. I.) In 

the tape recorded conversation between defendant and Mr. Cochran 

introduced at trial, defendant said: "I started to put somebody 

on you and have you hit off ... '' and "there's somebody involved 

in this money deal that would just love to get their hands on ya' 

if you did tell." (Brief of Defendant-Appellant, Appendix Bat 4, 

10.) 

Defendant filed a written objection to the increase of her 

offense level and argued at the sentencing hearing that the 

enhancement was not warranted. The trial court overruled the 

objection on the basis that considering the total circumstances, 

"[t]he clear purpose and intent of making the statement at that 

time by the defendant Starr towards Mr. Cochran was to intimidate 

Cochran and ensure if at all possible that no further 

investigation or information would be forwarded to federal 

authorities by Cochran .... " (R. Supp. Vol. II at 14, 11. 

12-16.) We agree with the trial court and find no error in its 

adjustment of defendant's offense level and concomitant 

enhancement of her sentence. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

5 

Appellate Case: 89-5027 Document: 01019958586 Date Filed: 01/02/1990 Page: 5