Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06277/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06277-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Clarence Lee Turner
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United St.at.es Court cf A~peala 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

CLARENCE LEE TURNER, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

T <''.'_L!, . • 

JUN 1 9 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-6277 

(D.C. No. CR-90-73-A) 

( W. D • Okla • ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, SEYMOUR, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

The parties have agreed that this case may be submitted for 

decision on the briefs. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 

10th Cir. R. 34.1.2. The case is therefore ordered submitted 

without oral argument. 

In this direct criminal appeal, defendant argues that the 

prosecution of this action in federal court violates his due 

process rights because the underlying investigation was carried 

out by state authorities. He cites United States v. Williams, 

746 F. Supp. 1076 (D. Utah 1990), and United States v. Roberts, 

726 F. Supp. 1359 (D.D.C. 1989), in support of this claim. Both 

* 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: 90-6277 Document: 010110128156 Date Filed: 06/19/1991 Page: 1 
of these cases are on appeal raising this issue. We need not 

address the merits of defendant's claim, however, because he did 

not raise this issue in the trial court, and we are satisfied that 

whatever the outcome of the cited cases on appeal, the claimed 

error does not amount to plain error "requiring action by the 

appellate court even though not called to the attention of the 

trial court." United States v. Shelton, 736 F.2d 1397, 1406 

(10th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 857 (1984). 

Defendant also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to 

support Count II of the indictment (possession with intent to 

distribute). The evidence, both direct and circumstantial, is 

sufficient to support the jury finding of guilt beyond a 

reasonable doubt. While there is no evidence that defendant 

actually had the cocaine on his person, the evidence fully 

supports both constructive possession and intent to distribute. 

See United States v. Culpepper, 834 F.2d 879, 881 (10th Cir. 

1987)(individual has constructive possession of drug when he 

"knowingly hold[s) the power and ability to exercise dominion and 

control over it"); United States v. Parrish, 925 F.2d 1293, 1297 

(10th Cir. 199l)(defendant's possession of a large quantity of 

drug can serve as sufficient evidence of intent to distribute). 

Count II arose out of an undercover sale of a kilo of 

cocaine. This kilo was part of several kilos that police had put 

on the market through a confidential informant. Eventually, 

telephone conversations in code were held with the defendant 

concerning the price and quantity of cocaine to be sold. 

Thereafter, defendant was observed following the "middle man" or 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-6277 Document: 010110128156 Date Filed: 06/19/1991 Page: 2 
"front man" into the parking lot of the motel where the sale was 

consummated. There was testimony that the defendant was keeping 

counter-surveillance while his representative completed the 

purchase and that the defendant's representative stated at the 

time of arrest that the defendant supplied the money for the 

transaction. This evidence, along with other evidence, is more 

than enough to sustain defendant's conviction of count II. 

AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

Monroe G. McKay 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-6277 Document: 010110128156 Date Filed: 06/19/1991 Page: 3