Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-05194/USCOURTS-ca10-91-05194-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Leroy Merritt
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

F I .L .-.. .J 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APlllnla!d;Stat.es C-ourtof Appeal~ Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

V. 

LEROY MERRITT, 

Defendant-Appe llant. 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

JAN 2 6 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER Clerk . 

No. 91 - 5194 

(D. C. No . CR-91 - 39 - C) 

(N. D. Ok lahoma ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENTl 

Before McKAY, Chief Judge, ANDERSON, Circuit Judge, and MECHEM, 2 

District Judge . 

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 ) ; 10t h Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Defendant Leroy Merritt appeals his conviction for being a 

felon in possession of firearm in violation of 18 U. S.C. § 

1 This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

exc ept for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel . 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

2 The Honorable Edwin L. Mechem, Senior United States District 

Judge for the District of New Mexico , sitting by designation . 

Appellate Case: 91-5194 Document: 010110159265 Date Filed: 01/27/1993 Page: 1 
922 (g) (1) . 

Defendant's appointed trial counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967) , requesting leave 

to withdraw. The defendant has filed a prose brief. Specifically, defendant asserts that the district court erred in denying 

his Motion to Suppress the firearm which was seized in this case 

and that he was denied effective assistance of counsel at trial. 

After a review of the record and an independent review of the 

allegations and arguments contained in defense counsel's Anders 

brief and defendant's prose brief, we affirm. 

I 

Defendant Merritt argues that he was subjected to an unconstitutional search and seizure and that the district court erred 

in denying his Motion to Suppress. In reviewing the denial of a 

motion to suppress, a district court's findings must be accepted 

unless clearly erroneous and the evidence must be viewed in the 

light most favorable to the district court's findings. United 

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

The record reveals that Tulsa police officers observed the 

defendant staggering down the street. As officers approached, 

they noticed that the defendant had his right hand inside his coat 

pocket. Defendant was requested to remove his hand from the 

pocket. When defendant did not respond, a second request was made 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-5194 Document: 010110159265 Date Filed: 01/27/1993 Page: 2 
to which defendant replied with slurred speech that he was not 

trying to hide anything. When officers were within arms reach of 

the defendant, he began to open his overcoat, at which point 

officer Moore grabbed defendant's hand and conducted a pat-down 

search of defendant's overcoat. Officer Moore testified that when 

he felt a hard object inside defendant's coat, he feared for his 

safety and reached inside the coat and removed a shotgun. 

After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that 

defendant's claim is without merit . Under Oklahoma law, it is a 

misdemeanor to be intoxicated in public. Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 

37, § 537 (A) (8) (West 1990). Accordingly, after viewing the 

defendant stagger down the street, the police officers were 

entitled to question him. Defendant's subsequent conduct justified the frisk or pat down that produced the shotgun. Terry v. 

Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 27 (1968). Accordingly, we hold that the 

district court did not err in denying defendant's Motion to 

Suppress. 

II 

Defendant also argues that he was denied effective assistance 

of counsel because his trial counsel failed to adequately question 

officer Moore at the suppression hearing and failed to put the 

defendant on the stand during the hearing so the court could judge 

his demeanor. 

-3 -

Appellate Case: 91-5194 Document: 010110159265 Date Filed: 01/27/1993 Page: 3 
To establish an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, 

defendant must show both that counsel's representation was deficient and that but for the deficient performance, there is areasonable probability that the outcome of the proceedings would have 

been different. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 

694 (1983) . After a thorough review of the record, we are satisfied that defense counsel's representation" [fell] within the wide 

range of reasonable professional assistance." Id. at 689. 

Accordingly, we hold that defendant's ineffective assistance of 

counsel claim is without merit. 

The judgment is AFFIRMED. 

-4 -

Entered for the Court 

Monroe G. McKay 

Chief Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-5194 Document: 010110159265 Date Filed: 01/27/1993 Page: 4