IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-10463

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

STERIC PAUL MITCHELL,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:13-CR-128-1

Before BENAVIDES, SOUTHWICK, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Steric Paul Mitchell appeals his jury trial convictions for conspiracy to 

commit kidnapping and for kidnapping, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1201(a)(1), (c), and 

the concurrent 420-month sentences that followed. He contends that the 

district court undermined his ability to present a complete defense or 

alternatively that his defense counsel was ineffective for failing to develop 

evidence necessary to support his primary defensive theory. We affirm. 

 

* 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

July 23, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-10463 Document: 00514566510 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/23/2018
No. 17-10463

2

Mitchell’s constitutional right to present a complete defense was not 

infringed by the district court’s in limine order excluding evidence that the 

victim was a prostitute or engaged in prostitution at the time of the crimes 

charged in the indictment. See FED. R. EVID. 412; see also Holmes v. South 

Carolina, 547 U.S. 319, 324 (2006); United States v. Ramos, 537 F.3d 439, 448 

(5th Cir. 2008).

To prove a violation of the kidnapping statute, the Government must 

establish “(1) the transportation in interstate [or foreign] commerce (2) of an 

unconsenting person who is (3) held for ransom or reward or otherwise, (4) such 

acts being done knowingly and willfully.” United States v. Garza-Robles, 627 

F.3d 161, 166 (5th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

“To prove conspiracy to commit kidnapping, the Government must establish: 

(1) the existence of an agreement between two or more people to pursue the 

offense of kidnapping; (2) the defendant knew of the agreement; and (3) the 

defendant voluntarily participated in the conspiracy.” Id. at 168.

We discern no due process violation. Whether the victim was a prostitute 

is “irrelevant to this case,” as that status alone “does not make more or less 

probable the fact that” Mitchell committed the crimes of conviction. United 

States v. Lockhart, 844 F.3d 501, 510 (5th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks, 

citation, and ellipsis omitted). Therefore, “the district court did not violate the 

Fifth Amendment when it excluded such evidence pursuant to Rule 412.” Id.; 

see Garza-Robles, 627 F.3d at 166, 168.

Nor do we discern an infringement of the right of confrontation. Mitchell 

is not constitutionally guaranteed “cross-examination that is effective in 

whatever way, and to whatever extent, [he] might wish.” Lockhart, 844 F.3d 

at 510 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “[C]ross-examination 

limited on the basis of a Federal Rule of Evidence does not abridge an accused’s 

 Case: 17-10463 Document: 00514566510 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/23/2018
No. 17-10463

3

right to present a defense so long as the rule is not arbitrary or 

disproportionate to the purposes it is designed to serve.” Lockhart, 844 F.3d 

at 510 (internal quotation marks, citation, and brackets omitted).

Mitchell does not explain why he did not avail himself of the opportunity 

to revisit the exclusion ruling in the district court before or during the trial. 

The record shows that the district court was at pains before trial to assure 

Mitchell that the order excluding mention of prostitution matters was not 

definitive but instead was merely preliminary and subject to revision or 

revocation. Mitchell fails to show that the evidentiary rules at issue in this 

case were arbitrary or were applied arbitrarily and that consequently he was 

improperly prevented from challenging the conspiracy and kidnapping charges 

by presenting evidence that the victim was a prostitute who voluntarily 

rendered sexual services. See Lockhart, 844 F.3d at 510.

We decline to consider Mitchell’s alternative claim of ineffective 

assistance of counsel, without prejudice to Mitchell’s right to assert the claim 

on collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 

2014). A proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is the favored forum for litigating 

federal prisoners’ claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Massaro v. United 

States, 538 U.S. 500, 504-09 (2003). The record before us is devoid of 

information about whether strategic decisions were made by Mitchell in 

concert with his trial counsel that may bear on the ineffectiveness claim. In 

sum, Mitchell does not present any justification for “an exception to [the] 

general rule of non-review” of an ineffectiveness claim on direct appeal. United 

States v. Stevens, 487 F.3d 232, 245 (5th Cir. 2007). 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 17-10463 Document: 00514566510 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/23/2018