Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-02068/USCOURTS-ca10-92-02068-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Antonio Medina
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

FILL.0 

United States Co1,rt of Appeali: Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 1 8 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v . 

ANTONIO MEDINA, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) No. 92-2068 

) (D . C. No. CR-91 - 524-JP-04 ) 

) (D. New Mexico) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Submitted on the Briefs: 

Before LOGAN , MOORE, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

Antonio Medina was convicted of conspiring to possess, and 

possession, with intent to distribute more than 100 kilograms of 

marijuana . He appeals, contending the evidence was insufficient 

to convict him and that he was deprived of the effective 

assistance o f counsel. We affirm. 

*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 , r e s judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 3 6. 3 . 

Appellate Case: 92-2068 Document: 010110175765 Date Filed: 02/18/1993 Page: 1 
Defendant's statement of the case, which is rich with 

adjectival references demeaning the testimony of the government's 

witnesses and replete with hyperbole and surmise better left to 

jury summation than appellate argument, is nonetheless a 

sufficient description of the testimony to counter his own claim 

of insufficiency. Nevertheless, our independent review of the 

record has satisfied us that the evidence produced by the 

government, together with the inferences logically flowing from 

that evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the 

government is sufficient 

defendant's guilt beyond a 

to satisfy a reasonable jury of the 

reasonable doubt . United States v . 

Nicholson, F . 2d No. 92-3083, 1993 WL 538, at * 5 (10th 

Cir. Jan . 5, 1993) . 

On October 2, 1991, defendant was observed driving a BMW auto 

into the Las Cruces International Airport where he waited 

approximately three hours for the arrival of a Cessna aircraft. 

When it landed, defendant drove to the plane and was given four 

empty suitcases by one of the two occupants. Defendant and Mr. 

Buzzanca, the plane's passenger, placed those suitcases in the 

trunk of the BMW. After settling accounts with the airport, the 

three drove to El Paso, Texas. 

A customs service agent, who was called to the airport by a 

suspicious employee, examined the plane with the assistance of a 

border patrol drug-sniffing dog. The dog alerted to the aircraft, 

and the plane was placed under surveillance by the agent. The 

agent, who had been given the license number of the BMW by the 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-2068 Document: 010110175765 Date Filed: 02/18/1993 Page: 2 
suspicious employee, also determined the car was registered to 

John P. Smith. 

Approximately two and a half days later, the surveilling 

officers observed a van enter the premises and park next to the 

aircraft they were watching. Two men removed from the car and 

loaded into the plane bags similar to the ones placed into the BMW 

by defendant and Mr. Buzzanca. Agents approached the two men and 

searched the bags after the drug sniffer alerted to them. 

Discovering approximately 303 pounds of marijuana in the bags, 

officers arrested the two men, codefendants Messig and Buzzanca. 

Defendant was later seen to enter the van and start its 

motor. He was then arrested and searched. Found in his 

possession was a set of keys, including one to a BMW. 

Defendant Smith was arrested about the same time driving a 

BMW in the vicinity of the airport. The BMW key found in 

defendant's possession opened the trunk of Mr. Smith's car. 

At trial, evidence established the Cessna had been purchased 

by Mr. Smith with $25,000 furnished by Mr. Buzzanca . At Mr. 

Smith's request, Mr. Buzzanca solicited Mr. Messig to fly the 

plane to transport marijuana from New Mexico to California. 

When Mr. Messig agreed, the two men decided to fly a trial 

run to Las Cruces to see if they could carry out the task. When 

they arrived at Las Cruces, they were met by defendant who then 

drove them to El Paso . Determining the trip could be 

accomplished, Messig and Buzzanca returned to California. 

Mr. Messig and Mr. Buzzanca then returned to Las Cruces on 

October 2, 1991, where they were again picked up by defendant. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 92-2068 Document: 010110175765 Date Filed: 02/18/1993 Page: 3 
While they were en route to their destination, defendant made a 

call on a cellular telephone. During this conversation, defendant 

told the person at the other end of the line that Messig and 

Buzzanca had not brought enough bags, but he would get more. 

After dropping his passengers at their hotel, defendant left 

only to return fifteen to twenty minutes later with four new 

suitcases purchased from a nearby store. He told the two men 

either he or Mr . Smith would be getting in touch with them, and he 

left. 

The next day, after directing the two men to another hotel, 

defendant told Mr. Buzzanca to rent a van and drove him to the El 

Paso airport in the BMW to accomplish the task. When Mr. Buzzanca 

returned, he and defendant loaded all the still-empty suitcases 

into the van. Buzzanca left the keys on the seat of the van as 

instructed by Mr. Smith who had informed him the van would be 

picked up and returned with marijuana in the suitcases. 

As promised by Mr. Smith, the van was removed and returned 

during the night. The next morning, Buzzanca and Messig drove the 

van to the airport where they were arrested. 

Defendant's attack upon this evidence is 

showed he was acquainted with Smith 

that 

and had 

it merely 

provided 

transportation for Buzzanca and Messig. 

told defendant about his association 

Moreover, neither of them 

with Smith. Indeed, he 

argues, his only act was to load and unload suitcases, an activity 

clearly consistent with innocence. 

Our view of the evidence is more expansive. We think it 

establishes defendant both possessed marijuana and played a 

-4-

Appellate Case: 92-2068 Document: 010110175765 Date Filed: 02/18/1993 Page: 4 
knowing and active role in a conspiracy to possess and transport 

marijuana for the purpose of distribution. Defendant's attempts 

in this appeal to impeach the veracity of his codefendants might 

have been addressed to the jury, for it is the function of the 

fact finder to judge the credibility of witnesses. Our function 

is to determine whether the evidence is present, not whether it is 

believable. On that score, we are satisfied the government met 

its burden of proof. 

Despite our holding in Beaulieu v. United States, 930 F.2d 

805 (10th Cir. 1991), defendant's second contention is that he was 

deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. Defendant makes 

no attempt to show us why we should not apply Beaulieu's long 

standing rule that we will not consider the issue of the effective 

assistance of counsel on direct appeal; accordingly, we will do 

so. 

The 11 facts 111 presented by counsel in his brief relative to 

this question should be developed in the crucible of an 

evidentiary hearing. 

determination of 

Only then can a court make the legal 

whether defendant's right to counsel was 

preserved in this trial. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

AFFIRMED. 

1 Statements of fact 

made in the brief, but 

supporting evidence can 

( e) . 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

relating to defendant's trial counsel are 

there are no citations to the record where 

be found. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a) (4) & 

-5-

Appellate Case: 92-2068 Document: 010110175765 Date Filed: 02/18/1993 Page: 5 
Appellate Case: 92-2068 Document: 010110175765 Date Filed: 02/18/1993 Page: 6