Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-05183/USCOURTS-ca10-92-05183-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Attorney General
Appellee
Ron Champion
Appellee
Reginald Lester Phillips
Appellant

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS F l L !., Hppea\~ United States Co~rt <\ . FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Tenth Circut 

REGINALD LESTER PHILLIPS, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

RON CHAMPION, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

for the State of Oklahoma, 

Respondents-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

MAY 11 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

) No. 92-5183 

) (D.C. No. 91-C-293-E) 

) (N. D. Okla. ) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE and BRORBY, Circuit Judges, and VAN BEBBER,** 

District Judge. 

**Honorable G. Thomas Van Bebber, District Judge, United States 

District Court for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

* 

The case is therefore ordered 

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. 

Appellate Case: 92-5183 Document: 010110114167 Date Filed: 05/11/1993 Page: 1 
Petitioner-appellant Reginald Phillips appeals the district 

court's adoption of the magistrate judge's proposed findings of 

fact and recommended disposition, denying his motion for relief 

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Because Phillips received effective 

assistance of counsel, we affirm. 

On August 5, 1985, at approximately 4:54 a.m., a woman was 

awakened by a figure leaning over her with a knife at her throat. 

She grabbed the knife by its blade, cutting her hand deeply and 

breaking the knife. She then attempted to defend herself with a 

. 357 revolver, but was disarmed by the intruder. The intruder 

raped and sodomized the victim several times. 

At approximately 6:00 a.m., the victim called the police. 

She reported that the rapist was a black man with a light beard, 

wearing a gold ring and a pair of shorts. She noted that the .357 

revolver was missing and that, based on statements made about her 

daughter and her pets, the intruder knew her. The victim was 

taken to the hospital for a rape examination. 

The police began to canvas the neighborhood. They spoke with 

the victim's next door neighbor, Terri Lincoln, twice, but did not 

enter her house. At approximately 7:00 a.m., a black male was 

seen leaving Lincoln's house and driving away. The officers then 

returned to the neighbor's home to make further inquiries. 

Lincoln identified the man as Reginald Phillips and explained that 

he occasionally stayed at her home. Lincoln's son, Tony Holt, 

gave the police a gold ring which he stated he had seen Phillips 

washing in the sink. In response to an inquiry about the clothing 

Phillips had worn the prior evening, Lincoln described the clothes 

2 

Appellate Case: 92-5183 Document: 010110114167 Date Filed: 05/11/1993 Page: 2 
and indicated that they were on the bedroom dresser. The police 

asked for, and received, Phillips' clothing from Ms. Lincoln. 

Phillips returned from work between 8:30 and 9:00 that 

morning. Upon his return, Tony Holt informed the victim that the 

rapist might be staying at his house. The victim called the 

police and requested that they investigate. When the call came 

through, it included a reference to a gun, presumably the .357 

revolver missing from the victim's home. Upon arriving at the 

Lincoln home, Tony Holt let the officers in, stating "he is in 

there." I Supp., Tr. at 124. Because the call involved the 

presence of a gun, the officer asked Phillips to step outside, 

where they could resolve the matter. When Phillips exited the 

house, the victim said "oh, my God, that is him. Oh, my God, that 

is him." I Supp., Tr. at 39. Phillips' hand had bruises around 

the fingers, and cuts in the palm. He also had scratches and 

abrasions on his chest. 

later. 

Phillips was arrested a few minutes 

The next day, Terri Lincoln discovered Phillips' shorts with 

dark smudges which appeared to be blood stains. She also 

discovered a .357 bullet under the couch. The police were called 

and these items were turned over. 

Phillips was convicted of first degree rape, first degree 

burglary, forcible sodomy, assault and battery with a dangerous 

weapon, and feloniously pointing a weapon. He did not challenge 

the legality of his arrest or the seizure of his belongings either 

at trial or on direct appeal. He then applied for state 

post-conviction relief, claiming, in pertinent part, that he was 

3 

Appellate Case: 92-5183 Document: 010110114167 Date Filed: 05/11/1993 Page: 3 
denied the effective assistance of counsel because his attorneys 

failed to challenge his arrest and the seizures. This application 

was denied at both the district court and appellate level. 

Phillips submitted a petition for writ of habeas corpus to 

the United States District Court for the Northern District of 

Oklahoma, raising the ineffective assistance claim. The district 

court adopted the magistrate's report and recommendation, finding 

that Phillips' claims of illegal arrest and unreasonable search 

and seizure were without merit. This appeal follows. 

A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel raises a mixed 

question of law and fact. United States v. Maxwell, 966 F.2d 545, 

547 (10th Cir. ), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 826 (1992). We review 

the facts found by the district court under a clearly erroneous 

standard, and review the ultimate legal conclusions de novo. 

United States v. Miller, 907 F.2d 994, 996 (10th Cir. 1990). 

Phillips argues that his trial and appellate attorneys were 

ineffective in failing to challenge his warrantless arrest and the 

seizures of evidence from Terri Lincoln's home. To succeed on 

this claim, Phillips must prove that his Fourth Amendment claims 

are meritorious and that there is a reasonable probability that 

the verdict would have been different, absent the excludable 

evidence. Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 375 (1986); United 

States v. Owens, 882 F.2d 1493, 1498 (10th Cir. 1989). 

Phillips alleges three Fourth Amendment violations: (1) 

illegal search and seizure of his ring, shirt, shoes and socks, on 

August 5, 1985; (2) illegal warrantless arrest on August 5, 1985; 

4 

Appellate Case: 92-5183 Document: 010110114167 Date Filed: 05/11/1993 Page: 4 
II 

• and (3) illegal search and seizure of his shorts and the bullet on 

August 6, 1985. Each of these will be addressed separately. 

The Fourth Amendment prohibition against a warrantless search 

and seizure does not apply when voluntary consent is obtained, 

either from the individual whose property is searched, or from a 

third party who possesses common authority over the property. 

Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177, 181 (1990); United States v. 

Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 170 (1974); United States v. Falcon, 766 

F.2d 1469, 1474 (10th Cir. 1985). "If common authority is 

established, the person whose property is searched is unjustified 

in claiming an expectation of privacy in the property because that 

person cannot reasonably believe that the joint user will not, 

under certain circumstances, allow a search in her own right." 

United States v. McAlpine, 919 F.2d 1461, 1463 (10th Cir. 1990). 

Here, Ms. Lincoln had complete access to and control over the 

articles of clothing located in her home. Her consent, therefore, 

was sufficient to negate the requirement of a warrant, and 

validated the August 5, 1985, search and seizure in this case. 

Phillips attempts to argue that Ms. Lincoln's consent was 

ineffective because it was she, rather than the officers, who 

searched for Phillips' clothing. He contends that by doing so, 

Ms. Lincoln became the "agent" of the police, citing Burdeau v. 

McDowell, 256 U.S. 465 (1921). Phillips, however, confuses two 

situations which arise under the Fourth Amendment. Burdeau and 

its progeny are designed to prevent the police from enlisting a 

third party to perform a search which the officers themselves 

could not perform without a warrant. 

5 

Here, in contrast, Ms. 

Appellate Case: 92-5183 Document: 010110114167 Date Filed: 05/11/1993 Page: 5 
Lincoln had authority to consent to the search, thus obviating the 

need for a warrant. Because the officers had full authority to 

conduct the search, it does not matter that Ms. Lincoln and her 

son actually produced the seized items. This is not a case in 

which law enforcement officers attempted to circumvent Fourth 

Amendment requirements through the use of a private agent . See, 

~, Pleasant v. Lovell, 876 F.2d 787, 796-98 (10th Cir. 1989). 

Phillips also argues that the officers lacked probable cause 

to arrest him without a warrant. "Probable cause exists where the 

facts and circumstances within an officer's knowledge and of which 

he had reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient to 

warrant a prudent man in believing that an offense has been or is 

being committed." Karr v. Smith, 774 F.2d 1029, 1031 (10th Cir. 

1985). Here, the officers had the following information before 

arresting Phillips: Phillips matched the description of the 

rapist; he possessed a gold ring which he was seen washing in the 

sink; he stayed next door to the victim and could have learned 

about her children and pets; he had cuts and bruises on his hands 

and chest; he was seen wearing shorts approximately one hour after 

the rape; and, most importantly, he was identified by the victim 

as the perpetrator. We hold that this information was sufficient 

to provide probable cause to arrest Phillips without a warrant. 

See id. at 1032 (probable cause existed when officer observed that 

property damage was intentional and owner identified suspect as 

perpetrator). 

Phillips argues that the officers were without authority to 

search and seize his shorts and the bullet without a warrant, and 

6 

Appellate Case: 92-5183 Document: 010110114167 Date Filed: 05/11/1993 Page: 6 
, 

further, that it was improper to test the shorts for blood spots. 

The record, however, shows that no search and seizure occurred. 

Rather, Ms. Lincoln volunteered these items on the day after the 

rape, without any requests by law enforcement officials. As these 

actions were taken on Ms. Lincoln's own initiative, the Fourth 

Amendment protections were not implicated. See. e.g., Coolidge v. 

New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 487-89 (1971). Even if the shorts 

and bullet were turned over in response to a police request, it is 

clear that Ms. Lincoln consented to the seizure. Because her 

control over the items was absolute, once she consented to seizure 

of the shorts, no additional authority was necessary for the 

officers to search the shorts for blood stains. See Falcon, 766 

F.2d at 1476. 

Based on the foregoing, it is clear that a motion to suppress 

would have been unavailing had it been made by counsel. Without a 

meritorious Fourth Amendment claim, Phillips' Sixth Amendment 

claim must fail and he is not entitled to habeas relief. 

882 F.2d at 1500. 

Owens, 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

7 

Appellate Case: 92-5183 Document: 010110114167 Date Filed: 05/11/1993 Page: 7