2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 6-30-2005 

# U SA v . C hin a P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 03-4852

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . C hin a" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 942. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/9421

NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL

I N TH E UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS

F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT C as e N o: 03- 4852 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. F RA NK C HI NA, A ppel l ant

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia D i s tr i ctC our tC r i m . N o. : 02- cr - 00656- 3 D i s tr i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e C ynthi a M . R ufe Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 28, 2005 B e f o re : N Y G A A R D , S M IT H , a n d F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudges

( Fi l ed: J une 30, 2005)

OP I NI ON S M IT H , C i r cui tJudge. F ran k C h ina w as c o n v ict ed b ya juryo f v iolati n g fe d era l narc o ti cs a n d rob b ery sta tu tes . H e w a s a P e n n sy lv a n ia S tate T ro o p e r a t th e tim e o f th e o f f e n se s. C h in a a p p e a ls2

th e D istric t C o u rt’s d e n ial o f h is R u le 2 9 m o tio n f

o r a ju d g m e n t o f

a c q u itt a l. H e a ss e rts thatthe governm ent ’ s cas e w as bas ed on the uncorr obor at ed t es t i m onyof an a l l eged a c c o m p lice , an d w a s th u s in su f f icie n t to su sta in h is c o n v ictio n . H e a lso a ss e rts th a t h is c o u n s e l w a s i n e f

f e c t i v e , th u s d e p r i v i n g h i m o f h i s r i g h t s t o c o u n s e l a n d t o a f a i rtr i a l . We have j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291. W e w i l l aff i r m the deni al of C hi na’ s R ul e 29 m o tio n . W e w ill d e n yh is c la im o f in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l w ith o u t p re

ju d ic e . W e w i l l r emand t he ca s e forr es ent enci ng i n acc or dance w i th U ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 543 U . S . __ , 1 2 5 S . C t. 7 3 8 (20 0 5 ). Suff i ci ency of t he E vi dence O u r re v iew o n a n a p p e a l th a t atta c k s th e su f f icie n c yo f

th e e v id e n c e is “ p a rticu lar ly defe r ent i al . ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. C othr an , 286 F. 3d 173, 175 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . W e vi ew t he evi dence i n a l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the governm entand s us t ai n the j ury ’ s ver di cti f any ra tio n a l ju ro r c o u ld h a v e f o u n d a ll o f

th e e lem e n ts o f

th e c rim e b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t. Id . C hi na cont ends thatthe l ar gel yuncorr obor at ed t es t i m onyof al l eged a ccompl i ce T err ence Per ki ns w as i nher ent l ys us pectbeca us e Perki ns i s an i ncorr i gi bl e cr i m i nal offe nder . M or eover , C hi na cont i nues , por t i ons of Perki ns ’ t es t i m onyw er e contr adi ct ed b yo th e r g o v e rn m e n t w itn e s s e s , a n d th u s th e re w a s n o b a s is f o r a le g itim a te c o n v ic tio n . T his con t enti on i s m eri t l ess. T he fir stcon tradi ct i on no t ed b yC hina con cerned P erki ns’ t est i m on yabo ut an i ncidenti n w hich vari ou s dr am at is pers onae had t o w ai tforas s i s t ance3

w hen key s w er e l ocked i n a ca r . T hi s i s an i ncons equent i al det ai l aboutw hi ch contr adi ct oryt es t i m onys houl d t r oubl e no one. C h in a ’s s e c o n d c o n ten tio n c o lo rs a s “ in c re d ib le” P e rk in s’ te stim o n yo f a sc h e m e in w hi ch C hi na “a r r es t ed” Perki ns , hi s al l eged pa r tner - i n- cr i m e, as a cove ri n a s ham drug bus ti n w hi ch theys t ol e a ki l o of coc ai ne fr om T r oyB r i nkl ey , w i th w hom Per ki ns w as r i di ng i n a ca r . C hi na deni ed Perki ns ’ r endi t i on, w hi ch had Chi na dr i vi ng a handc uffe d Per ki ns thr ough the St at e Troope rbarr acks , as bei ng the “mosts tupi des tthi ng t o do i f I h ad d o n e tha t. ” C h ina a rgu es th at P erk ins’ storym ak es n o sen se u n d er the g o v ern m en t’ s th e o ry th a t C h in a a n d P e rk in s w e re in c a h o o ts . E v id e n tly , C h in a d o e s n o t w a tch m a n yc rim e d ra m a s. T h e sig h t o f th e g a n g m o le o r th e c o n f

id e n tial in f

o rm a n t w h o m a k e s th e c o n tro lled n a rc o tics b u yb e in g su b jec t to f a k e a rre st, a n d h is s h a re o f ro u g h in g u p , at th e tim e o f th e b u st s h o u ld b e f

a m ili a r to any one fa m i l i arw i th t he genr e. T he j uryw as ent i t l ed t o bel i eve Perki ns ’ ver s i on of the tr ope and di s bel i eve Chi na’ s compet i ng cons pi r acytheory . I n s hor t , C hi na cl ai m ed that he bec ame unw i t t i ngl yent angl ed i n the cr i m es w hen he a t t empt ed t o cl earhi s name i n t he c o m m u n ity b ys h a k in g d o w n D io n n e S te a v e in a m a ll p a rk in g lo t a s a f a v o r t o P e rk in s . Per ki ns , i n C hi na’ s s or di d s cr eenpl ay , had bes m i r ched Chi na’ s good name byacc us i ng h im o f s te a lin g th e k ilo o f

c o c a in e f

ro m P e rk in s a n d B ri n k le y . W e have no di ffi cul tyi n aff i r m i ng the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deni al of C hi na’ s R ul e 29 m ot i on. Per ki ns ’ t es t i m onys uppl i ed onl ythe mot i vat i on forC hi na’ s admi t t ed4

law les sn e ss . A ra tio n a l ju ro r c o u ld h a v e b e liev e d P e rk in s’ v e rsio n o f th e e v e n ts in f in d in g C h in a g u iltyo f

th e c rim e s c h a rg e d b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t. I nef f ect i ve A s s i s t ance of

C ounsel C h in a c o n ten d s th a t h is tria l co u n se l’s f a ilu re to c a ll a h a n d w riting e x p e rt to b o lste r a p o rtio n o f

h is d e f e n se , w h ich h in g e d o n id e n tify in g w h o h a d f ill e d o u t ce rta in po rt i on s of a p oli ce fo rm , effecti velyden i ed h i m assi st ance o f cou nsel . In m ostcases, w hetherthi s cl ai m has anym er i ti s bes taddr es s ed i n a col l at er al act i on r atherthan on di r ectappea l , and w e do notthi nk thi s cas e mer i t s devi at i ng fr om thi s C our t ’ s nor m al p ra c tic e . See U

ni t ed Stat es v. Thornton , 327 F. 3d 268, 271 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . T he tr i al r ecor d bel ow w as focus ed on ena bl i ng the j uryt o det erm i ne w hetherC hi na w as gui l tyof the cha r ges agai ns thi m , notfort es t i ng the s oundnes s of hi s couns el ’ s s tr at egyor c o u n s e l’ s s k ill in im p le m e n tin g it. See M as s ar o v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 538 U . S. 500, 505 (20 0 3 ). H ere , fo r i n stan ce , the re co rd d o es n o t r ev ea l w h ethe r his tr ial co u n sel’s su p p o se d f

a ilu re w a s a stra teg ic m o v e o r a b lu n d e rin g o m iss io n . T h is in f o rm a tio n is bas i c t o C hi na’ s cl ai m . T her efor e, the bes tcour s e i s t o denyC hi na’ s cl ai m w i thout pr ej udi ce. H e may , i f he c hoos es , devel op the theoryon col l at er al att ack pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2255. C hi na’ s Sent ence I n r es pons e t o t hi s C our t ’ s M ar ch 3, 2005 “ B ookeror der , ” C hi na ar gues that j udi ci al fac tfi ndi ng and the conc om i t anti ncr eas es i n hi s s ent ence w er e pr ecl uded under5

B lakel y v. W as hi ngt on , 542 U . S. __, 124 S. C t . 2531 ( 2004) . O n B la ke ly ’ s heel s , the Supr eme C our tdeci ded U ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 5 4 3 U .S . __ , 1 2 5 S .C t. 7 3 8 (2 0 0 5 ). T her e, the Supr eme C our tdet erm i ned thatthe G ui del i nes w er e onl yadvi s ory , not m a n d a to ry. H avi ng det erm i ned thatthe s ent enci ng i s s ues C hi na r ai s es ar e bes tdet erm i ned by the D i s tr i ctC our ti n t he fi r s ti ns t ance , w e w i l l vaca t e the s ent ence and r emand for r es ent enci ng i n acc or dance w i th B ooker .