Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02090/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02090-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Blanca Elizabeth Michaels
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

♦ 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff/Appellee, 

FJLBD 

United Stitf§ c;oo,, t1f Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

MAY 2- 1991 

.ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 90-2090 

v. 

BLANCA ELIZABETH MICHAELS, 

Defendant/Appellant. 

(D.C. No. Cr-89-484-HB-2) 

(D. New Mexico) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN and SEYMOUR, Circuit Judges, and SPARR, District 

Judge.** 

Blanca Elizabeth Michaels appeals her conviction with codefendant Brown in a jury trial for possession with intent to 

distribute over 100 kilograms of marijuana in violation of 21 

U.S.C. §84l(a) (1): §84l(b) (1) (B), and 18 U.S.C. §2. Michaels 

raises four issues in her appeal, each will be discussed in order. 

Appellant contends she was deprived of effective assistance 

of counsel at the pre-trial stage of proceedings when appellant 

would have been offered a plea bargain. Here appellant argues that 

her pre-trial counsel was faced with an overt conflict of interest 

* 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. 

** The Honorable Daniel B. Sparr, United States District Judge 

for the District of Colorado, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 90-2090 Document: 010110106439 Date Filed: 05/02/1991 Page: 1 
' 

due to counsel's comment that co-defendant Brown "would be pointing 

the finger at each other during the trial. In Martinez v. 

Sullivan, 881 F.2d 921 (10th Cir. 1989), this circuit adopted the 

two-part test articulated in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 

(1984): 

First, the defendant must show that counsel's performance 

was deficient--that is, 'that counsel's representation 

fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.' 

(Strickland, 446 U.S. at 688.) 

Second, he must show this deficiency prejudiced his 

defense--that is, 'that there is a reasonable probability 

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

of the proceeding would have been different.' 

(Strickland, 446 U.S. at 694.) 

Appellant has failed to make the requisite showing under the 

first element of this test, and has also failed to show the second 

element of prejudice. With regard to the second element, appellant 

has also failed to meet the prejudice standard in Burger v. Kemp, 

483 U.S. 776 (1987). 

With regard to appellant's second argument, appellant claims 

that the district court erred in admitting evidence of a 

communication between co-defendants which was ethically revealed 

by joint counsel. Appellant's contention here concerns her 

authorship of a letter to co-defendant Brown, offering her 

financial reward for Brown's entry of a guilty plea which would 

then take the pressure off the appellant. The letter was damaging 

to the appellant and was read into the record at trial. Although 

both parties have acknowledged that the standard of review for 

applicability of the attorney-client privilege is unsettled in this 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-2090 Document: 010110106439 Date Filed: 05/02/1991 Page: 2 
. , 

circuit, that issue need not be addressed in this appeal as the 

appellant has not established that the privilege would attach to 

the communication here. See United States v. Bump. 605 F.2d 548 

(10th Cir. 1979). The letter was written by appellant and 

delivered to her co-defendant Brown at a time when both were 

represented by counsel. No attorney was involved in the 

communication until after the appellant had delivered the letter 

to her co-defendant. 

The third issue Michaels raises in her appeal concerns the 

alleged denial of her right to exercise peremptory challenges. 

Appellant argues that the four strikes disallowed by the district 

court due to time constraints later served on the jury empaneled 

for the trial. The applicable standard for review is abuse of 

discretion. United States v. Morris, 623 F.2d 145 (10th Cir. 

1980). From consultation of the record at vol. II, page 127, there 

was no abuse of discretion as the district judge was merely 

preventing appellant from adding to her joint list of challenges 

once the government's challenges were read. 

Finally, appellant asserts that the district court erroneously 

assessed her two extra points on the Sentencing Guideline scale for 

obstruction of justice. Under the standard in United States v . 

Williams, 897 F.2d 1041 (10th Cir. 1990), the district court's 

determination is subject to review only for clear error. Appellant 

contends that the two points amounted to a penalty assessed for the 

existing conflict of interest and loss of confidence in her trial 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-2090 Document: 010110106439 Date Filed: 05/02/1991 Page: 3 
.. 

counsel. Such contention does not rise to the level of clear error 

as committed by the district court. 

AFFIRMED. 

-4-

Entered for the Court 

Daniel B. Sparr 

District Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-2090 Document: 010110106439 Date Filed: 05/02/1991 Page: 4