Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-09-01434/USCOURTS-ca3-09-01434-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael D. King
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 09-1434

_____________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

MICHAEL D. KING,

 Appellant

______________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Delaware

(D.C. No. 08-cr-00036-001)

District Judge: Honorable Joseph J. Farnan, Jr.

_______________

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

January 29, 2010

Before: RENDELL and JORDAN, Circuit Judges and PRATTER,* District Judge.

(Filed February 8, 2010)

_______________

OPINION OF THE COURT

_______________

_______________

 *Honorable Gene E.K. Pratter, United States District Court Judge for the Eastern

District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.

Case: 09-1434 Document: 003110013795 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/08/2010
2

JORDAN, Circuit Judge.

Michael King appeals from a judgment entered by the United States District Court

for the District of Delaware convicting him of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and § 924(a)(2). King’s attorney filed a brief as

permitted by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no nonfrivolous issues to appeal and seeking leave to withdraw from representing King. In

response, King submitted a pro se brief in which he argues that the District Court erred in

denying his motion to suppress. For the following reasons, we will grant counsel’s

request to withdraw and affirm the judgment of conviction and sentence. 

I. Background

A. Factual Background

At approximately 11:00 p.m. on February 12, 2008, Officers Matthew Kucharski

and David Hamrick, and several other officers from the Wilmington Police Department,

responded to a 911 call at the Bethel Villa Apartments in Wilmington, Delaware. The

911 caller was a woman residing at Bethel Villa who reported that a man with a gun had

threatened to kill her. Upon arrival, Kucharski and Hamrick met the victim and heard her

description of what had occurred. According to the victim, she had arrived home and

found King sitting on the steps in the hallway of her apartment building smoking

marijuana. A verbal altercation ensued, during which King told the victim, “mind your

own business before I kill you.” (App. at A43.) After the victim went inside her

Case: 09-1434 Document: 003110013795 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/08/2010
 In contrast, Nicholas Riley, a friend of King, testified that he was in Cottingham’s 1

apartment sitting on the couch when the officers entered.

3

apartment, King knocked on her apartment door, and she opened it slightly, leaving the

chain-lock secured. King then pointed a silver gun toward her and said, “you’re going to

die.” (App. at A44.) As she was closing the door, the victim heard King running

upstairs and she looked out the door again in time to see him run into Apartment C1, on

the third floor. 

Kucharski and Hamrick next proceeded to Apartment C1, with the victim

following close behind. Kucharski knocked on the apartment door, which was opened by

Ressa Cottingham, King’s girlfriend. Cottingham allowed them to enter the apartment to

discuss the incident and confirmed to the officers that she lived in the apartment and her

name was on the lease. Once inside, the officers noticed that there were children in the

apartment, but they did not immediately observe any other adults. Cottingham informed 1

the officers that King was also in the apartment. After the officers asked to speak with

him, Cottingham yelled down the hallway for King, who came out of a bedroom. As

King came out, the victim, who was able to see into the apartment from the outside

hallway through the open door, identified King as the man who had threatened her.

 Kucharski then patted down King and felt what he believed to be a bag of illegal

drugs in his front right jacket pocket. Kucharski asked King what the object was, and

King responded, “I don’t know, check.” (App. at A51.) Kucharski retrieved the bag from

Case: 09-1434 Document: 003110013795 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/08/2010
4

King’s pocket and found it contained marijuana. He then placed King under arrest and

took him to the patrol car. According to the officers, as King left the apartment, he told

Cottingham not to let the officers search the apartment without a warrant.

While Kucharski remained with King outside the apartment, Hamrick spoke to

Cottingham about the incident and obtained Cottingham’s consent to search the

apartment. Prior to receiving such consent, Hamrick reviewed a Wilmington Department

of Police Consent to Search form with Cottingham and read the entire document to her. 

Cottingham signed the form, which acknowledges that Cottingham had the right to refuse

the police to search her property, that she in fact waived this right of refusal, and that her

written permission to search the property was given without threat, promises, or

inducements of any kind. After obtaining Cottingham’s written consent, Hamrick

proceeded to search the bedroom where King had been when the officers arrived at the

apartment. While searching in the closet, Hamrick found a silver revolver, which the

victim identified as the gun that King had brandished when he threatened to kill her. 

After King’s arrest, Officer David Rosenblum took his statement. King said that

he was living in the apartment with Cottingham and her child, but he also mentioned that

he lived at another address. Rosenblum also interviewed Cottingham, who asserted that

King did not live in the apartment and only stayed there occasionally.

Case: 09-1434 Document: 003110013795 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/08/2010
 It is unclear whether Riley was in fact present when the officers entered Cottingham’s 2

apartment. Kucharski seems to recall Riley, or at least some adult male other than King,

being present. However, Hamrick does not recall seeing Riley in the apartment.

5

B. Procedural Background

On March 4, 2008, a grand jury sitting in the District of Delaware returned a onecount indictment against King, charging him with being a felon in possession of a

firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and § 924(a)(2). King filed a motion to

suppress evidence and statements, arguing that law enforcement officials had conducted a

warrantless search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. At the suppression hearing that

ensued, the focus was on whether King had standing to raise a Fourth Amendment

challenge to the search of Cottingham’s apartment, as either a co-resident at the apartment

or an overnight guest.

During the hearing, Nicholas Riley, a friend of King’s for the last five years,

testified that King had a six-month-old baby with Cottingham and had been living with

her in the apartment for approximately one year. When asked how he knew King lived

with Cottingham, Riley stated, “I usually pick him up. I see him hanging out and visiting

with her. I would go over and call.” (App. at A106.) In addition, Riley testified that

King had keys to the apartment and kept his clothes and car at the apartment.

Riley also testified that he was sitting on the couch in Cottingham’s apartment

when the officers entered and witnessed the events immediately before the arrest. He 2

testified that Cottingham initially refused to give the officers permission to search the

Case: 09-1434 Document: 003110013795 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/08/2010
6

apartment and only consented to the search after they threatened to call Social Services

and have her children taken from her. In addition, Riley claimed that the door to

apartment C1 was closed while the officers were inside Cottingham’s apartment and that

the victim was not present to identify King when he exited the bedroom. Thus, Riley

testified that the identification did not occur as the officers claimed it did. 

Sean Williams, an investigator for the Federal Public Defender’s Office, testified

that he interviewed Cottingham, who informed him that she was being evicted from her

apartment because of allegations that King lived with her. However, Cottingham never

told Williams that the allegations were true (i.e., that King was in fact living there.)

Cottingham did not appear at the suppression hearing because the lawyer representing her

in eviction proceedings instructed her not to speak about the incident.

The District Court denied King’s motion to suppress, concluding that King had not

established a reasonable expectation of privacy in Cottingham’s residence as either a coresident or as an overnight guest. The Court found Riley’s testimony to be unworthy of

belief. Instead, the Court credited the testimony of Officers Kucharski and Hamrick.

Specifically, the Court stated:

Mr. Riley testified that he was with Mr. King throughout the day, but he

was not with him when he ran from downstairs to Ms. Cottingham’s

apartment upstairs. However, Mr. Riley testified that he was present when

the Officers entered Ms. Cottingham’s apartment. Mr. Riley’s version of

the events that transpired after the marijuana was found in Mr. King’s

pocket differs from the testimony of the Officers, and the Court credits the

testimony of Officers Kucharski and Hamrick. For example, Mr. Riley

testified that there was a twenty minute gap between the time the Officers

Case: 09-1434 Document: 003110013795 Page: 6 Date Filed: 02/08/2010
7

found the marijuana and the time they took Mr. King out of the apartment. 

During this twenty minute gap, Mr. Riley testified that the Officers were

threatening Ms. Cottingham saying that they would take her kids away from

her, and yet, Mr. King ‘was standing, just standing there looking’ ... This

testimony is not only inconsistent with the Officer’s testimony, but it is also

inconsistent with the position advanced by Mr. King in his Motion, i.e., that

Mr. King was expressing his lack of consent to the search by telling Ms.

Cottingham not to provide the Officers with consent to search the premises.

(App. at A17-18.) The Court also stated that Riley’s use of the words “hanging around”

and “visiting” are inconsistent with the premise that King lived at the apartment. 

According to the Court, “a resident would not merely be ‘hanging out’ and ‘visiting’ with

Ms. Cottingham, he would be living with her in the apartment on a consistent and regular

basis.” (App. at A18.) The Court also found that Riley’s testimony was contradicted by

Cottingham’s lease, which prohibited King’s full or part-time residence at the apartment,

and by Detective Rosenblum’s testimony regarding his interview with Cottingham. Thus,

the Court concluded that King had failed to adduce sufficient evidence to establish that he

was a co-resident of the apartment at the time of the search. 

The Court also concluded that King’s occasional presence at the apartment was

insufficient evidence to establish that he was an overnight guest at the time in question. 

Further, aside from Riley’s testimony, which the Court rejected, there was no evidence

that King had clothes, belongings, or any overnight bags in the apartment.

On October 9, 2008, King pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and § 924(a)(2), reserving the right to appeal the

Case: 09-1434 Document: 003110013795 Page: 7 Date Filed: 02/08/2010
 The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We have 3

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 

8

District Court’s suppression ruling. On January 16, 2009, the Court sentenced King to 78

months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. King has timely appealed.

II. Discussion3

Under Anders v. California, “if counsel finds his case to be wholly frivolous, after

a conscientious examination of it, he should so advise the court and request permission to

withdraw.” 386 U.S. at 738, 744 (1967). “That request must ... be accompanied by a

brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.” Id. In

United States v. Youla, we summarized the requirements for counsel’s withdrawal and our

review of the record as follows: 

The duties of counsel when preparing an Anders brief are (1) to satisfy the

court that counsel has thoroughly examined the record in search of

appealable issues, and (2) to explain why the issues are frivolous. Counsel

need not raise and reject every possible claim. However, at a minimum, he

or she must meet the “conscientious examination” standard set forth in

Anders. 

241 F.3d 296, 300-01 (3d Cir. 2001) (citations omitted). An appeal is frivolous where

“none of the legal points are arguable on the merits.” Id. at 301 (citations omitted).

In this case, the only potential issues mentioned in King’s counsel’s brief relate to

the motion to suppress and the reasonableness of King’s sentence. After describing those

issues, counsel acknowledged that there was no sound basis for advancing them on

appeal. King apparently concedes that there are no non-frivolous arguments regarding the 

Case: 09-1434 Document: 003110013795 Page: 8 Date Filed: 02/08/2010
 After reviewing the record, we also find that any argument with respect to the sentence 4

would be frivolous. The District Court properly calculated King’s Guideline range,

meaningfully considered the Sentencing Guidelines and § 3553(a) factors, and provided

detailed reasons for its imposition of a sentence at the top of the advisory Guidelines

range. 

9

reasonableness of his sentence, as the only argument raised in his pro se brief pertains to

the motion to suppress. 

4

Turning to the argument raised by King in his pro se brief, “[w]e review [a] district

court’s denial of [a] motion to suppress for clear error as to the underlying facts, but

exercise plenary review as to its legality in light of the court’s properly found facts.”

United States v. Givian, 320 F.3d 452, 458 (3d Cir. 2003) (citations omitted). 

The Fourth Amendment protects “the right of the people to be secure in their

persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S.

CONST. AMEND. IV. Generally, for a seizure to be reasonable under the Fourth

Amendment, it must be effectuated with a warrant based on probable cause, unless it falls

within an exception to the warrant requirement. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357

(1967). If voluntary consent is obtained from the individual whose property is to be

searched or a third party with common authority or joint control over the premises, the

government may search the premises without a warrant. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412

U.S. 218, 222 (1973). In his motion to suppress, King argued that the evidence obtained

by the government should be suppressed because the government did not obtain valid

Case: 09-1434 Document: 003110013795 Page: 9 Date Filed: 02/08/2010
 King did not dispute that Cottingham had the authority to permit the search. Rather, 5

he argued that Cottingham’s consent was not given freely and voluntarily, because it was

only after the officers threatened to call Social Services and have her children taken from

her that Cottingham consented to the search of her residence.

 A co-resident of a shared dwelling and an overnight guest of a dwelling are typically 6

held to have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that dwelling. See e.g., Olson, 495

U.S. at 110; United States v. Villegas, 495 F.3d 761, 772 (7th Cir. 2007).

10

consent to search the apartment where King’s gun was found. In order to maintain such 5

a challenge, King must show that his own constitutional rights have been violated by the

search in question, i.e., that he has standing. United States v. Padilla, 508 U.S. 77, 81-82

(1993).

To establish standing, the party contesting the legality of the search bears the

threshold burden of establishing that he or she had a reasonable expectation of privacy in

the property searched and the item seized. Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91, 96-97

(1990); Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83 (1998). At issue here is whether King has

standing to challenge the search of Cottingham’s apartment by virtue of being a coresident or an overnight guest. King does not take issue with the District Court’s 6

application of law, but argues that the Court erred in its factual determinations that he was

not a co-resident or overnight guest. Essentially, he argues that the Court erred by

rejecting the testimony of Riley and accepting the testimony and statements of Kucharski,

Hamrick, Rosenblum, and King’s own girlfriend, Cottingham. However, “assessments of

credibility by the trial court are entitled to great deference at the appellate level.” Givian,

320 F.3d at 452 (quoting United States v. Brothers, 75 F.3d 845, 853 (3d Cir. 1996)). 

Case: 09-1434 Document: 003110013795 Page: 10 Date Filed: 02/08/2010
11

Further, the record reveals that the District Court’s factual findings are not clearly

erroneous. The evidence supporting King’s position that he was a co-resident or

overnight guest was limited and rebutted. Not only was Riley’s testimony inconsistent

with that offered by the officers, it was also inconsistent with the arguments advanced by

King at the suppression hearing and with statements made by Cottingham. For example,

while Riley claimed that King lived at the apartment, Cottingham, who undisputably lived

at the apartment, told officers that King did not live there. The Court was fully justified

in accepting the testimony it chose to accept and in concluding that King was not a coresident or overnight guest. Having made that determination, the Court properly

concluded that King lacked standing to challenge the search of Cottingham’s apartment.

We also conclude that counsel’s brief adequately demonstrates a thorough

examination of the record in search of appealable issues and an adequate explanation of

why the issues are frivolous. Thus, counsel for King has satisfied the Anders

requirements and we will grant the motion to withdraw. 

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, will grant counsel’s request to withdraw representation

and affirm the judgment of the District Court. 

Case: 09-1434 Document: 003110013795 Page: 11 Date Filed: 02/08/2010