Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-09-50925/USCOURTS-ca5-09-50925-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sammy Garcia
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-50925

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

SAMMY GARCIA, also known as Spiderman,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:04-CR-425-17

Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Sammy Garcia moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP)

following the district court’s certification that his appeal was not taken in good

faith. Garcia appeals from the denial of his motion for a new trial pursuant to

FED. R. CRIM. P. 33(b)(1), which was based on the drug conviction, more than

three years after Garcia’s trial, of a deputy sheriff who testified at his trial.

Garcia contends that the district court erred by denying his motion for a

new trial because he had no opportunity to impeach the deputy with information

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

July 21, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 09-50925 Document: 00511180635 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/21/2010
No. 09-50925

about the deputy’s purchase of drugs from a confidential informant (CI); because

the deputy’s arrest cast doubt on his conviction by somehow proving that the

deputy perjured himself at Garcia’s trial when he testified as to seized weapons;

and because the deputy’s arrest somehow proved that he planted drugs in order

to prosecute Garcia and other drug defendants. Garcia states that he is actually

innocent on one count of conviction, and he suggests that the Government

engaged in misconduct by using the deputy as a witness.

“This court reviews a denial of a motion for a new trial for abuse of

discretion.” United States v. Franklin, 561 F.3d 398, 405 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,

129 S. Ct. 2848, and cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 2882 (2009).

In order to receive a new trial on the basis of newly discovered

evidence, the defendant must demonstrate that: (1) the evidence is

newly discovered and was unknown to the defendant at the time of

trial; (2) failure to detect the evidence was not due to a lack of

diligence by the defendant; (3) the evidence is not merely cumulative

or impeaching; (4) the evidence is material; and (5) the evidence

introduced at a new trial would probably produce an acquittal.

Id. (footnote, internal quotation marks, and citations omitted).

The record in the deputy’s case indicates that the deputy engaged in

criminal activity with one CI in early 2008. That is, however, all that the record

in that case demonstrates. Garcia was convicted in 2005 of criminal conduct

occurring between August 1, 1999, and August 1, 2004. See United States v.

Valles, 484 F.3d 745, 750-51 (5th Cir. 2007). Garcia does not direct this court’s

attention to any evidence indicating that the deputy was engaged in criminal

conduct or any noncriminal misconduct before his trial or at the time of his trial.

To the extent evidence of the deputy’s conviction could be considered to be

“newly discovered evidence” at all, that conviction, without more, is not relevant

to the issue whether the deputy committed perjury or testified inaccurately at

Garcia’s trial. To the extent that evidence of the deputy’s conviction could be

used to impeach his credibility in any new proceeding, impeachment evidence

2

 Case: 09-50925 Document: 00511180635 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/21/2010
No. 09-50925

does not serve as a basis for obtaining a new trial. See Franklin, 561 F.3d at

405. The denial of Garcia’s new trial motion therefore was not an abuse of

discretion. See id.

Garcia has failed to raise a legally nonfrivolous issue for appeal. His

motion for leave to proceed IFP is denied. See United States v. Boutwell, 896

F.2d 884, 889-90 (5th Cir. 1990); Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.

1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is dismissed. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

Finally, Garcia’s motion for leave to file a supplemental brief is denied. See 5TH

CIR. R. 28.4.

IFP DENIED. APPEAL DISMISSED. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF DENIED.

3

 Case: 09-50925 Document: 00511180635 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/21/2010