Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-30120/USCOURTS-ca5-03-30120-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Phil Andrew Wilson
Appellant

Document Text:

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 19, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-30120

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 PlaintiffAppellee,

versus

PHIL ANDREW WILSON,

 DefendantAppellant.

---------------------------------------------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 02-CR-50038-1

--------------------------------------------------------

Before SMITH, DeMOSS AND STEWART, Circuit Judges:

PER CURIAM:*

PhilAndrew Wilson appeals his convictionsfor conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute

50 grams or more of cocaine and cocaine base and possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or

more of cocaine and cocaine base. 

Wilson arguesthat there wasinsufficient evidence to support his convictions because the only

evidence of his involvement was the allegedly unsupported, inconsistent, and false testimony of two

 Case: 03-30120 Document: 0051435791 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/19/2004
 

-2-

co-defendants. Because he did not move for a judgment of acquittal below, our review is limited to

a determination whether there was a “manifest miscarriage ofjustice.” See United States v.Johnson,

87 F.3d 133, 136 (5th Cir. 1996) (internal quotation and citation omitted). We conclude that the

testimonyofWilson’s co-defendants was not factuallyinsubstantialor incredible, and therefore it was

sufficient to support his convictions. See United States v. Medina, 161 F.3d 867, 872-73 (5th Cir.

1998); see also United States v. Greenwood, 974 F.2d 1449, 1458 (5th Cir. 1992) (“Assessing the

credibility of witnesses and weighing the evidence is the exclusive province of the jury.”).

Because the cocaine was found in a hidden compartment of a vehicle, Wilson arguesthat the

district court erred by not including an instruction on guilty knowledge. Plain error review applies

because counsel did not request the instruction and did not object to the instructions given. See

United States v. Daniels, 281 F.3d 168, 183 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1105 (2002). Because

the instructions given followed this court’s Pattern Jury Instructions, and because the jury was

properly instructed on the substantive offenses, we conclude that Wilson has not shown that the

district court plainly erred. See United States v. Cano-Guel, 167 F.3d 900, 905 (5th Cir. 1999). 

Appellant’s brief also includes several pro se issues briefed by Wilson rather than counsel.

Although included with counsel’s brief, counsel has not adopted these issues. Wilson does not have

a “constitutional right to hybrid representation.” See United States v. Ogbonna, 184 F.3d 447, 449

n. 1 (5th Cir. 1999); see also 5TH CIR. R. 28.7 (“Unless specifically directed by court order, pro se

motions, briefs or correspondence will not be filed if the party is represented by counsel.”).

Therefore, we do not consider these issues.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 03-30120 Document: 0051435791 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/19/2004