Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02114/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02114-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Carlton Lee Hughes
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

CARLTON LEE HUGHES, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

FILED 

United States Courr of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

APR l 7 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-2114 

(D.C. No. 89-520 JC) 

(D.N.M.) 

Before SEYMOUR, ANDERSON, and TACIIA, Circuit Judges. 

Defendant Carlton Hughes was indicted for possession of 

methamphetamine with intent to distribute in violation of 21 

u.s.c. S 841(a)(l). Defendant moved for the issuance of a 

subpoena duces tecum to obtain evidence to impeach the 

government's key witness. This motion was denied. Defendant also 

moved to suppress the evidence seized from the automobile he had 

been driving. After considering the evidence presented at the 

suppression hearing, the district court concluded the officer's 

reason for stopping defendant was not pretextual and defendant had 

voluntarily consented to a search of his automobile and its 

contents. 

* 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 estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-2114 Document: 010110034199 Date Filed: 04/17/1991 Page: 1 
• 

Defendant was tried before a jury and found guilty. The 

district court refused to find defendant was a minimal or minor 

participant in the offense and sentenced him to 360 months' 

imprisonment and five years' probation following release from 

confinement. A mandatory special assessment of fifty dollars was 

also ordered. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal and we 

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. S 1291. We affirm. 

The district court correctly denied defendant's motion for a 

subpoena duces tecum. We review the denial of this motion for 

abuse of discretion. United States Y'..!.. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 702 

(1974). Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c) states that "the 

court on a motion made promptly may quash or modify the subpoena 

if compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive." The Supreme 

Court stated in Nixon that a subpoena duces tecum should be issued 

only if the moving party shows: 

(1) that the documents are evidentiary and relevant; (2) 

that they are not otherwise procurable reasonably in 

advance of trial by exercise of due diligence; (3) that 

the party cannot properly prepare for trial without such 

production and inspection in advance of trial and that 

the failure to obtain such inspection may tend unreasonably to delay the trial; and (4) that the application is 

made in good faith and is not intended as a general 

"fishing expedition." 

Id. at 699-700. 

Defendant admits he moved for the subpoena duces tecum to 

obtain evidence tending to show Officer Sanchez had a propensity 

to make pretextual stops and to impeach the officer's credibility. 

We agree with the district court that this request for documentary 

evidence was merely a "fishing expedition." The court properly 

denied the request for the subpoena duces tecum because it was 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-2114 Document: 010110034199 Date Filed: 04/17/1991 Page: 2 
( 

.\ 

' overbroad. Defendant did not request the court to conduct an in 

camera review of the materials to determine what information was 

relevant. Moreover, the government stated in response to 

defendant's motion that it would provide defendant with all 

exculpatory materials as required by Brady Y.!.. Maryland, 373 U.S. 

83 (1963). Defendant was thus assured he would receive any 

relevant information within the scope of his request. See United 

States Y.!.. Muse, 708 F.2d 513, 516 (10th Cir. 1983). 

Defendant's motion to suppress the approximately seventy-five 

pounds of methamphetamine found in the trunk of his automobile was 

properly denied. In reviewing this ruling, we accept the district 

court's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. 

United States Y.!.. Lopez, 777 F.2d 543, 548 (10th Cir. 1985). 

First, the district court properly concluded the stop was not 

pretextual. Based on the evidence presented, the district court 

properly determined that a reasonable New Mexico State Police officer routinely would have stopped a vehicle for traveling twelve 

miles an hour over the speed limit. The record contains no 

evidence of an illicit motive for the stop in this case. United 

States Y.!.. Erwin, 875 F.2d 268, 272 (10th Cir. 1989); United States 

Y.!.. Guzman, 864 F.2d 1512, 1515-18 (10th Cir. 1988). Moreover, 

defendant admitted he was exceeding the speed limit when he signed 

the ticket issued by the officer. 

Second, the court correctly found defendant consented to the 

search of his automobile. Defendant gave written consent to 

search the car and all containers therein. The district court's 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-2114 Document: 010110034199 Date Filed: 04/17/1991 Page: 3 
conclusion that this consent was voluntary in light of the totality of the circumstances is not clear error. See Schneckloth Y-!.. 

Bustamante, 412 U.S. 218, 233-34 (1973); United States Y-!.. Corral, 

899 F.2d 991, 994 (10th Cir. 1990). 

There was sufficient evidence to prove defendant knowingly 

possessed a controlled substance. In reviewing the sufficiency of 

the evidence on which the jury conviction rests, we evaluate the 

evidence in the light most favorable to the government. United 

States Y-!.. Levario, 877 F.2d 1483, 1485 (10th Cir. 1989). All 

reasonable inferences and credibility choices are made in favor of 

the jury's conclusions. United States Y-!.. Massey, 687 F.2d 1348, 

1354 (10th Cir. 1982). Our review does not include an assessment 

of the credibility of witnesses; that task is reserved for the 

jury. Levario, 877 F.2d at 1485. 

The evidence presented at trial established that defendant 

exercised exclusive dominion and control over the automobile in 

which the drugs were found. In addition, there was sufficient 

circumstantial evidence to permit the jury to conclude beyond a 

reasonable doubt that defendant knowingly possessed the drugs. 

See United States Y-!.. Hooks, 780 F.2d 1526, 1532 (10th Cir.), cert. 

denied, 475 U.S. 1128 (1986). For example, the jury heard Officer 

Sanchez's testimony concerning the conversation he had with 

defendant immediately following the stop. During this conversation, defendant admitted the identity and weight of the substance 

found in the trunk of the automobile. He also offered to give the 

officer "$11,000 if you let me go." 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-2114 Document: 010110034199 Date Filed: 04/17/1991 Page: 4 
' 

There was also sufficient evidence for the jury to find 

defendant intended to distribute the drug. The value of the 

methamphetamine seized, $5,433,600, is sufficient to establish 

this intent. See Hooks, 780 F.2d at 1532. The conviction for 

violating of 21 u.s.c. S 84l(a)(l) was supported by sufficient 

evidence. 

The district court did not err in refusing to find defendant 

was a minimal or minor participant in the offense and reduce 

defendant's offense level accordingly. The court's factual 

findings will be reversed only if they are clearly erroneous. 

United States Y.!.. Pelayo-Munoz, 905 F.2d 1429, 1431 (10th Cir. 

1990). The court specifically found there was no evidence beyond 

defendant's own testimony indicating others were involved in the 

scheme to distribute methamphetamine. Defendant refused to even 

provide the names of others involved in the drug trafficking. The 

trial court correctly concluded defendant failed to prove by a 

preponderance of the evidence that he was not a major participant 

in the scheme. See id. at 1430 (defendant cannot satisfy burden 

of proving he was a minimal or minor participant by relying solely 

on his own testimony). We AFFIRM. 

-5-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-2114 Document: 010110034199 Date Filed: 04/17/1991 Page: 5