Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02519/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02519-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Lesly
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

vs. No. 88-2519 

JAN 2 - ~S'?) 

-~OBERT L HOEC¥..ER 

Clerk 

JOHN LESLY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

(D.C. No. CR-88-224-2) 

. (D. New Mexico) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT 

Before*EBEL and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges, and RUSSELL, District 

Judge. 

On September 14, 1988 the defendant entered a . conditional 

plea of guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 

more than 1000 kilograms of marijuana (Ct. 1), importation of more 

than 1000 kilograms of marijuana (Ct. 2), and possession with 

intent to distribute more .than 1000 kilograms of marijuana (Ct. 

3). Defendant appeal~ the district court's denial of his motion 

to suppress the search of his vehicle and trailer which revealed 

the more than 1000 kilograms of marijuana. 

*Honorable David L. Russell, United States District Judge for the 

Western District of- Oklahoma, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 88-2519 Document: 01019957770 Date Filed: 01/02/1990 Page: 1 
The only issue on appeal, defendant having · withdrawn the 

other issues, 1 is whether the district ·court properly decided that 

the officers who searched defendant's vehicle and trailer had 

consent to do so. 

The evidence at the suppression hearing showed that u. S. 

border agents were notified of a sensor hit along the 

international border between the United States and Mexico. While 

en route to the area of the sensor hit the agents were notified of 

two additional hits on Mount Riley road which runs from the 

international border in a northerly direction in the vicinity of 

the Mount Riley ranch. The agents followed fresh footprints into -

the Mount Riley ranch. According to Agent Hernandez's testimony 

at the suppr€ssion hearing, an unknown male, later identified as 

co-defendant Carl Kitchens, was seen exiting ·the ranch house and, 

pursuant to his invitation, the agents went into the ranch house. 

Accordin~ to Hernandez, Kitchen$ said he was the owner of the 

ranch. At some point while talking to Kitchens the agents 

observed footprints around the outside of the ranch house similar 

to those seen outside the ranch gate. 

The agents left the ranch to go to the site of the original 

sensor hit along the border. Other _ agents at this site told Agent 

Hernandez they had seen tracks at the border similar to the ones 

he described at the ranch. Agent Hernandez returned to the ranch 

and again was invited into th~ ranch house by Defendant Kitchens. 

l After this case had been briefed and argued, appellant's 

counsel filed an "Agreed Motion to Dismiss Appeal." Because that 

motion does not . comply with Tenth Circuit Rule 46.3.3, it is 

denied. 

- 2 -

Appellate Case: 88-2519 Document: 01019957770 Date Filed: 01/02/1990 Page: 2 
Hernandez testified he asked Kitchens who owned the vehicles 

parked outside the ranch house and Kitchens responded he was the 

owner. Hernandez walked around · the trailer and thought he 

detected the odor of marijuana. According to Agent Hernandez, as 

Kitchens was preparing ~o leav~ the ranch he gave the agents 

verbal consent to search the trailer. The search revealed the 

marijuana. It was ultimately determined that the vehicle was 

registered to the appellant Lesly who was arrested shortly 

thereafter. 

Co-defendant Kitchens testified at the suppression hearing 

and denied that he invited the agents into the ranch, denied that 

he told them he owned the vehicles and denied that he gave them 

consent to search. 

After hearing the evidence the district judge found that 

Kitchens had invited the agents into the ranch, that he told the 

agents he owned the vehicles and ·consented to their search. 

In reviewing a trial court's denial of a motion to suppress 

evidence, the court's factual findings must be accepted by this 

court unless they are clearly erroneous. United States v. Lopez, 

777 F.2d 543, 548 (10th Cir. 1985). An agent may rely on the. 

qppar~nt authority of a person to consent to a search. See United 

States v. Yarbrough, 852 F.2d 1522, 1534 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 

U.S. , 109 s.ct: 171, 102 _L.Ed.2d 140 (1~88); United States 

v. Varona-Alger, 819 F.2d 81, 83 (5th Cir.) cert. denied, 

U.S. , 108 s.ct. 296, 98 L.Ed.2d 255 (1987); United States 

v. Miller, 800 F.2d 129, 133 (7th Cir. 1986). There was ample 

evidence in the record that co-defendant Kitchens had the apparent 

- 3 -

Appellate Case: 88-2519 Document: 01019957770 Date Filed: 01/02/1990 Page: 3 
authority to consent to the search of the vehicles and that he 

freely gave that consent. The findings of the district court are 

supported by the evidence and are not clearly erroneous. 

Based on the foregoing the judgment of the district court is 

AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

- 4 -

Appellate Case: 88-2519 Document: 01019957770 Date Filed: 01/02/1990 Page: 4