Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-09-01205/USCOURTS-ca7-09-01205-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Reginald Smith
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted February 3, 2010

Decided February 4, 2010

Before

KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge

TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 09-1205

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

REGINALD SMITH,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the 

United States District Court for the 

Southern District of Indiana, 

Indianapolis Division.

No. 08-CR-00038

Sarah Evans Barker,

Judge.

O R D E R

Reginald Smith was found guilty by a jury of possessing a firearm after a felony

conviction, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and was sentenced to 108 months’ imprisonment. Smith

filed a notice of appeal, but his appointed lawyers represent that the case is frivolous and

move to withdraw. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Smith objects to counsel’s

submission. See CIR. R. 51(b). We limit our review to the potential issues considered in

counsel’s facially adequate supporting brief and in Smith’s response. See United States v.

Schuh, 289 F.3d 968, 973-74 (7th Cir. 2002).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

 Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

Case: 09-1205 Document: 29 Filed: 02/04/2010 Pages: 4
No. 09-1205 Page 2

At 6:45 a.m. on a December morning in 2007, police in Indianapolis, Indiana,

responded to a 911 call reporting that shots had been fired. The accounts given by the

police officers and Smith differ as to what happened next. At a pretrial hearing on Smith’s

motion to suppress his postarrest statements, Officer Figura, the first officer on the scene,

noted that the area was deserted except for Smith knocking on a door demanding to be let

in. When Figura approached to see if Smith had heard the shots, he saw Smith drop on the

sidewalk what turned out to be a .30-caliber rifle. Figura (now joined by backup officers)

arrested Smith, searched his pockets, and discovered several .30-caliber bullets. Smith told

Figura that it was not his gun. When the officers explained they were arresting Smith

because he was found with a gun after a report of shots fired, Smith began swearing at the

officers. Figura asked for Smith’s identifying information, but he testified that he asked no

other questions. Another officer, Decker, testified that he read Miranda warnings to Smith

from a card. When asked if he understood those warnings, Smith reportedly responded, “I

ain’t telling you shit.”

Police continued to investigate the area, discovering several spent .30-caliber

casings. During the investigation, Smith was kept nearby in handcuffs, but police said he

was not questioned. Agitated and upset, Smith accosted the investigating officers with a

string of lewd and abusive comments, but he also volunteered that he was a member of the

10th Street Vanish Gang and had been shot at by “Mez,” a member of a rival gang warring

over drug turf. 

Smith’s version of events was different. Although he admitted making lewd

comments after his arrest, he testified that he never saw the rifle, did not have any bullets

in his pockets, was not given Miranda warnings, and never volunteered that he was shot at

or was a member of a gang.

At trial Officers Figura and Decker testified consistently with their testimony at the

suppression hearing, as did Smith. The jury returned a guilty verdict. At sentencing, after

concluding that Smith’s testimony at trial was perjurious and warranted a two-level

increase in his offense level, the district court calculated his guidelines range to be

120 months’ imprisonment (the range would have been 120 to 150 months but was capped

by the statutory maximum). Believing there to be “still some hope” for Smith, the district

court sentenced him to 108 months’ imprisonment.

In their Anders submission, counsel first question whether Smith could challenge the

denial of his motion to suppress his postarrest statements. When reviewing a ruling on a

motion to suppress, we evaluate factual findings for clear error and questions of law de

novo. United States v. Burnside, 588 F.3d 511, 516-17 (7th Cir. 2009). Motions to suppress

almost always involve fact-specific inquiries, and because it was the district judge who 

Case: 09-1205 Document: 29 Filed: 02/04/2010 Pages: 4
No. 09-1205 Page 3

heard the testimony and observed the witnesses at the suppression hearing, we would

defer to the judge’s credibility findings, which almost never will be clearly erroneous. 

United States v. Stewart, 536 F.3d 714, 720 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 741 (2008); United

States v. Biggs, 491 F.3d 616, 621 (7th Cir. 2007). Counsel recognize that statements made in

response to custodial interrogation would be inadmissible if the defendant was not advised

of his constitutional rights to silence and counsel. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444

(1966); United States v. Peterson, 414 F.3d 825, 828 (7th Cir. 2005). But it was not clearly

erroneous for the court to conclude that although Smith initially invoked his right to

silence, he later waived that right by volunteering information about the shooting and gang

war. Volunteered statements are admissible, Miranda, 384 U.S. at 478; United States v.

Hendrix, 509 F.3d 362, 374 (7th Cir. 2007), so any challenge to the suppression ruling would

be frivolous.

Counsel next consider whether Smith might challenge the admission at trial of

evidence that the police were responding to a 911 call that shots had been fired, that the

arresting officers discovered spent shell casings near Smith, and that the officers were told

by Smith that he was shot at because of a gang turf battle. We would review evidentiary

rulings for an abuse of discretion, United States v. Conner, 583 F.3d 1011, 1018 (7th Cir. 2009),

but would reverse a conviction only if the ruling had a substantial influence on the verdict,

United States v. Ortiz, 474 F.3d 976, 982 (7th Cir. 2007). We would find no abuse of

discretion in the admission of this evidence. At trial Smith refused to stipulate that the

item found on the sidewalk after his arrest was designed to fire and thus met the statutory

definition of a “firearm.” See 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3). Both the .30-caliber casings and the

evidence that the police were reacting to a report of gunfire are relevant to the question

whether Smith possessed a firearm. See United States v. Moore, 25 F.3d 563, 568 (7th Cir.

1994) (observing that presence of bullets is relevant to question whether a “firearm” was

possessed). And although the district court initially barred the government from

introducing testimony about hostilities between rival gangs, the court changed its view

after Smith testified that he never told the officers anything about the shooting; that denial,

the court reasoned, opened the door to impeaching testimony concerning what Smith did

tell the officers, including his gang affiliation. We would conclude that the testimony was

proper because it explained Smith’s motive for possessing the firearm and ammunition. 

Accordingly, any challenge to these evidentiary rulings would be frivolous.

Counsel next consider whether Smith might challenge the sufficiency of the

evidence supporting his conviction, a contention we would accept only if, viewing the

evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, “no rational trier of fact could have

found proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 324

(1979); United States v. Harris, 585 F.3d 394, 402 (7th Cir. 2009). But because the jury could

Case: 09-1205 Document: 29 Filed: 02/04/2010 Pages: 4
No. 09-1205 Page 4

rely on the police officers’ testimony that they saw Smith drop the rifle and that bullets

were discovered in his pockets, this challenge would be frivolous.

Counsel and Smith then question whether there might be a nonfrivolous basis for

Smith to challenge his prison sentence. Smith proposes to argue that the district court

applied a presumption that a sentence within the guidelines range should be imposed. 

Such a presumption would have been error, Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 351 (2007);

United States v. Smith, 562 F.3d 866, 872 (7th Cir. 2009), but in Smith’s case the district court

did exactly as it should: as the district court explained, it would “look at those guidelines

and see if they represent a reasonable sentence in this case, in your case; and if not how

they should be tweaked or changed or modified.” See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38,

49-50 (2007); United States v. Hurt, 574 F.3d 439, 442 (7th Cir. 2009) (concluding that district

court properly calculated sentence and then considered whether that sentence would be

reasonable); Smith, 562 F.3d at 872 (same). Smith also contends that the district court

disregarded United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), by increasing his offense level for

obstruction of justice without letting a jury decide whether he perjured himself at trial. We

have explained repeatedly, however, that Booker holds that guidelines adjustments are for

the sentencing court to decide, not the jury. E.g., United States v. Parr, 545 F.3d 491, 505 (7th

Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 1984 (2009); United States v. Clanton, 538 F.3d 652, 655 (7th

Cir. 2008); United States v. Roti, 484 F.3d 934, 937 (7th Cir. 2007). Moreover, because the

finding that Smith perjured himself is not clearly erroneous, we would not overturn the

two-level increase for obstruction of justice. United States v. Anderson, 580 F.3d 639, 648 (7th

Cir. 2009). Finally, because it is “hard to conceive of below-range sentences that would be

unreasonably high,” United States v. George, 403 F.3d 470, 473 (7th Cir. 2005), any challenge

to the length of the imprisonment term would be frivolous.

Last, counsel consider whether Smith might challenge the district court’s denial of

his pretrial request for new counsel or the effectiveness of his trial counsel. We would

reverse a conviction based on the denial of substitute counsel only if the lawyer who

remained on the case was constitutionally ineffective. United States v. Harris, 394 F.3d 543,

552 (7th Cir. 2005); United States v. Zillges, 978 F.2d 369, 372-73 (7th Cir. 1992). But because,

as both counsel and Smith concede, the record is insufficient to determine whether

counsel’s performance was adequate, any challenge on this record to the court’s denial of

the request or the effectiveness of his counsel would be best reserved for collateral review. 

See Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 504 (2003); United States v. Turcotte, 405 F.3d 515,

537 (7th Cir. 2005).

Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED and the appeal is

DISMISSED.

Case: 09-1205 Document: 29 Filed: 02/04/2010 Pages: 4