Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/80/596/627551/
Timestamp: 2020-07-12 00:52:11
Document Index: 747713108

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 922', '§ 3161', '§ 3161', '§ 3161', '§ 3161', '§ 3161', '§ 3161', '§ 922', '§ 922', '§ 922', '§ 922']

United States of America, Appellee, v. Stephen J. Staula, Defendant, Appellant, 80 F.3d 596 (1st Cir. 1996) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › First Circuit › 1996 › United States of America, Appellee, v. Stephen J. Staula, Defendant, Appellant
United States of America, Appellee, v. Stephen J. Staula, Defendant, Appellant, 80 F.3d 596 (1st Cir. 1996)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit - 80 F.3d 596 (1st Cir. 1996) Heard March 5, 1996. Decided March 29, 1996
A federal grand jury charged defendant-appellant Stephen J. Staula, in relevant part, with being a felon in possession of a firearm (count 1) and ammunition (count 2), and with receiving a stolen firearm (count 3). See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (1), (j). Following a five-day trial, the petit jury convicted the appellant on all three counts.1 The court imposed an incarcerative sentence.
We sketch the facts in the light most hospitable to the jury's verdict. See United States v. Ortiz, 966 F.2d 707, 711 (1st Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1063, 113 S. Ct. 1005, 122 L. Ed. 2d 154 (1993).
The appellant's principal claim is that the prosecution did not bring him to trial within the time frame prescribed by the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161-3174 (the Act), and concomitantly, that the district court therefore should have dismissed the indictment. In this case, the speedy trial claim involves a straight question of law engendering de novo review. See United States v. Rodriguez, 63 F.3d 1159, 1162 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S. Ct. 681, 133 L. Ed. 2d 529 (1995); see also United States v. Gallo, 20 F.3d 7, 11 (1st Cir. 1994) (explaining that pure questions of law demand plenary appellate review).
The baseline premise of the Act is its requirement, embodied in 18 U.S.C. § 3161(c) (1), that a defendant is entitled to be tried within seventy days of his indictment or initial appearance before a judicial officer (whichever first occurs). See United States v. Hastings, 847 F.2d 920, 924 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 925, 109 S. Ct. 308, 102 L. Ed. 2d 327 (1988). The premise cannot be taken literally, however, for the Act contemplates that certain periods of time will be excluded from the computation. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h). An inquiring court therefore must follow a two-step process. First, the court must do the basic mathematics and determine the aggregate time elapsed awaiting trial. Second, it must determine how many days should be excluded from that ultimate sum. See United States v. Sepulveda, 15 F.3d 1161, 1193 (1st Cir. 1993), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 114 S. Ct. 2714, 129 L. Ed. 2d 840 (1994).
The appellant challenges this ruling. He contends that the brief exchange on March 22 did not comprise a "hearing" for purposes of the Act. The point is significant because the Act provides that delay connected with a pending pretrial motion, "from the filing of the motion through the conclusion of the hearing on, or other prompt disposition of, such motion," is excludable. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h) (1) (F). For motions that require a hearing,2 this subsection excludes the time between the filing of the motion and the hearing on that motion, even if the delay is overlong, inexplicable, or unreasonable. See Henderson v. United States, 476 U.S. 321, 329-30, 106 S. Ct. 1871, 1876-77, 90 L. Ed. 2d 299 (1986); United States v. Johnson, 29 F.3d 940, 942-43 (5th Cir. 1994); United States v. Clymer, 25 F.3d 824, 830-31 (9th Cir. 1994); United States v. Noone, 913 F.2d 20, 27 n. 10 (1st Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 906, 111 S. Ct. 1686, 114 L. Ed. 2d 81 (1991). Thus, if the March 22 encounter comprises a hearing within the purview of the Act, the district court appropriately excluded all the time accrued after November 17, 1994.
The Act itself does not define the term "hearing," and the case law on this point is relatively sparse. It is clear, however, that due process rarely demands full evidentiary hearings, see Doyle v. Secretary of HHS, 848 F.2d 296, 302 (1st Cir. 1988) (collecting cases), and we are confident that something less than a full evidentiary hearing will suffice to engage the gears of § 3161(h) (1) (F). Two recent Fifth Circuit cases are instructive. In United States v. Tannehill, 49 F.3d 1049 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S. Ct. 167, 133 L. Ed. 2d 109 (1995), the court declared that, at a minimum, "the term includes a situation in which the district court hears argument of counsel and considers [those arguments] prior to making its ruling." Id. at 1053. Utilizing this standard, the court held that a discussion of the merits of the defendant's motion at the outset of trial constituted a hearing for purposes of the Act. See id.
In United States v. Grosz, 76 F.3d 1318 (5th Cir. 1996), a brief exchange concerning a pending motion occurred between the district court and counsel for the government (in which defense counsel, although present, did not play a part). See id. at 1322-23. Applying the Tannehill standard, the panel found this abbreviated colloquy to be a hearing within the purview of the Act. See id. at 1324-25. The court said that a hearing occurs whenever the district judge discusses the merits of a motion with counsel for the party against whom the ruling on the motion is ultimately rendered. See id.
To say more would be to add hues to a rainbow. We hold that a hearing is any on-the-record colloquy in which the district court hears the arguments of counsel and considers those arguments prior to deciding a pending motion. Measured by this yardstick, the proceedings on March 22 constitute a hearing for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h) (1) (F). It follows inexorably that the district court properly excluded the entire period from November 17, 1994 through March 22, 1995 (a date beyond the date on which the appellant filed his motion to dismiss).3 See Henderson, 476 U.S. at 330, 106 S. Ct. at 1876-77.
In assessing "whether the government has made a sufficient showing of probable cause, a reviewing court must examine the 'totality of the circumstances.' " United States v. Nocella, 849 F.2d 33, 39 (1st Cir. 1988) (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 230, 103 S. Ct. 2317, 2328, 76 L. Ed. 2d 527 (1983)). On appeal, this assessment entails acceptance of the lower court's factual findings unless those findings are clearly erroneous, but necessitates plenary review of the lower court's legal conclusions. See United States v. Zapata, 18 F.3d 971, 975 (1st Cir. 1994); United States v. Rodriguez-Morales, 929 F.2d 780, 783 (1st Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1030, 112 S. Ct. 868, 116 L. Ed. 2d 774 (1992). Moreover, the law recognizes that a vehicle search under this exception may encompass all areas of the vehicle in which the suspected contraband is likely to be found. See United States v. Maguire, 918 F.2d 254, 260 (1st Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 950, 111 S. Ct. 1421, 113 L. Ed. 2d 474 (1991). Applying these principles, it is readily apparent that the court below did not err in finding probable cause and ratifying the search.
Tyrie's affidavit asserts unambiguously that he detected an aroma of burnt marijuana when he first approached the pickup truck. The case law is consentient that when a law enforcement officer detects the odor of marijuana emanating from a confined area, such as the passenger compartment of a motor vehicle, that olfactory evidence furnishes the officer with probable cause to conduct a search of the confined area. See United States v. Johns, 469 U.S. 478, 482, 105 S. Ct. 881, 884, 83 L. Ed. 2d 890 (1985); United States v. Parker, 72 F.3d 1444, 1450 (10th Cir. 1995); United States v. French, 974 F.2d 687, 692 (6th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1066 & 507 U.S. 978, 113 S. Ct. 1012, 113 S. Ct. 1431, 122 L. Ed. 2d 160, 122 L. Ed. 2d 798 (1993). Thus, Tyrie had a right to search the entire passenger compartment of the pickup truck. See United States v. Nielsen, 9 F.3d 1487, 1491 (10th Cir. 1993).4
The appellant also assails the second phase of the search (during which Tyrie located the gun and ammunition). That search was lawful for three reasons. First, the extent of a permissible search is often incremental. See, e.g., United States v. Giannetta, 909 F.2d 571, 574, 577 (1st Cir. 1990). Here, Tyrie's discovery of the marijuana gave him probable cause to continue to hunt within the passenger compartment for more contraband. See, e.g., Maguire, 918 F.2d at 260. Second, the appellant cannot seriously dispute that when Tyrie spied the marijuana, he had probable cause to arrest the truck's occupants. See, e.g., United States v. Uricoechea-Casallas, 946 F.2d 162, 166 (1st Cir. 1991). Having lawfully arrested the driver in the course of a highway stop, the authorities may search the driver's vehicle for contraband. See New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 460-61, 101 S. Ct. 2860, 2864-65, 69 L. Ed. 2d 768 (1981); United States v. Reyes-Mercado, 22 F.3d 363, 366 n. 4 (1st Cir. 1994). Under this rule, the second phase of Tyrie's search can be justified as incident to a lawful arrest. Third, when a driver is lawfully arrested and thus disabled from continuing his journey, the Constitution permits the police to carry out a routine inventory examination incident to impounding the vehicle. See Zapata, 18 F.3d at 978; United States v. Ramos-Morales, 981 F.2d 625, 627 (1st Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 926, 113 S. Ct. 2384, 124 L. Ed. 2d 287 (1993). In this case, the second phase of the search fit comfortably within this integument.
2. Lack of an Evidentiary Hearing. The appellant next berates the trial court for two ostensible procedural blunders: denying him an evidentiary hearing on his motion to suppress and shunning its responsibilities under Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(g). The criticism is unwarranted.
The appellant's claim that the district court violated Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(g) is equally jejune. That rule does not demand that the trial court hold an evidentiary hearing on every affected motion. It simply requires the court to ensure that a verbatim record is made of all proceedings and hearings, including "such findings of fact and conclusions of law as are made orally." Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(g). The transcripts of the March 22 colloquy and the judge's subsequent denial of the motion to suppress fully satisfy the strictures of the rule.
1. Scienter. Turning first to counts 1 and 2, the statute of conviction, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (1), requires proof of three elements: (1) that the defendant had a record of prior felonious conduct, yet (2) knowingly possessed a gun (or ammunition), (3) in circumstances that implicated interstate commerce. See United States v. Powell, 50 F.3d 94, 101 (1st Cir. 1995). The appellant concedes that the government proffered sufficient evidence to support findings beyond a reasonable doubt anent the first and third of these elements but disputes the sufficiency of the evidence regarding the second: his knowing possession of the firearm and the ammunition. His plaint boils down to a plea that the jury was duty bound to accept the only direct testimony on the subject--Nason's averment that he placed the gun and ammunition in the truck, returned it only minutes before the arrest, and never called the added contents to the appellant's attention--and not to go beyond it.
There are two major problems with this suggested approach. First, Nason's story, even if believed, does not necessarily exonerate the appellant; the latter might still have discovered the contraband between the time when Nason returned the truck and Tyrie flagged it down. Second, the jury was not obliged to accept Nason's testimony in whole or in part, but could instead draw reasonable inferences from the totality of the circumstances. See, e.g., United States v. Olbres, 61 F.3d 967, 971 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S. Ct. 522, 133 L. Ed. 2d 430 (1995); United States v. O'Brien, 14 F.3d 703, 707 (1st Cir. 1994).
These problems are exacerbated by the other evidence in the record. The circumstantial proof of knowing possession is very strong. The appellant was both the owner and operator of the vehicle and, from where he sat, he had easy access to the gun (which seemed ready for immediate use) and the ammunition. Since the appellant exercised dominion and control over the area in which the gun and the ammunition were discovered, see United States v. Echeverri, 982 F.2d 675, 678 (1st Cir. 1993), the jury was at liberty to find that he was in knowing constructive possession of the weaponry. See United States v. Wight, 968 F.2d 1393, 1398 (1st Cir. 1992) (holding that "the element of 'knowing possession' under section 922(g) (1) may be established by proving that the defendant was in constructive possession of a firearm"); see also United States v. Bergodere, 40 F.3d 512, 518 (1st Cir. 1994) (explaining that knowledge may be established from circumstances attendant to constructive possession), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S. Ct. 1439, 131 L. Ed. 2d 318 (1995). In short, the jury's conclusion concerning the appellant's knowing possession is eminently supportable on this record.
The difficulty with this argument is twofold. In the first place, we reject the notion that, to trigger § 922(j), a firearm must reenter the stream of interstate commerce after its theft. This court turned aside a similar challenge under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) in United States v. Gillies, 851 F.2d 492, 493-95 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 857, 109 S. Ct. 147, 102 L. Ed. 2d 119 (1988), and we find the rationale in Gillies to be persuasive. Thus, consistent with that rationale we hold that, under § 922(j), it is enough if the weapon floats in the stream of commerce at some point prior to the commission of the offense of conviction. Accord United States v. Honaker, 5 F.3d 160, 162 (6th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 114 S. Ct. 1226, 127 L. Ed. 2d 571 (1994). Because the appellant does not dispute that the firearm travelled in interstate commerce before coming to rest in his pickup, he cannot prevail.
The finishing touch is that there was evidence at trial that the firearm travelled interstate as a stolen firearm. The appellant's own witness, Nason, swore that he took the gun with him from Massachusetts to New Hampshire only a few days before the police found the weapon in the appellant's possession (and several years after the gun had been reported stolen). Thus, even if post-theft travel were an element of the offense, the verdict would not be undercut.5
The indictment also charged the appellant with two drug-related offenses. The jury acquitted him on these counts and we eschew any further reference to them
It is often arguable whether a particular motion requires a hearing. See generally United States v. Tannehill, 49 F.3d 1049, 1052 n. 4 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S. Ct. 167, 133 L. Ed. 2d 109 (1995). Here, the appellant requested a hearing on his motion, thus acknowledging that one was appropriate. Consequently, we need not discuss the factors that determine whether a given motion "requires" a hearing
We join the Fifth Circuit, see Grosz, 76 F.3d at 1325 n. 7, in warning that we will not permit either the district court or the prosecution to jerry-build a "hearing" in order to thwart the concinnous operation of the Speedy Trial Act. Here, however, the record contains no hint of such contrivance, and, for that matter, the appellant has levelled no such charge
The appellant's attempt to dilute the force of these cases is disingenuous. He cites other decisions suggesting that the existence of probable cause to search the passenger compartment of a vehicle does not necessarily confer a right to search the trunk. See, e.g., Nielsen, 9 F.3d at 1491. Expanding on this theme, he then posits that Tyrie could not search behind the seats in the pickup truck. The fly in this ointment is that the space behind the seats, in which Tyrie found the marijuana, is part of the truck's passenger area, and no amount of wordplay can change that fact. Since the aroma of marijuana wafted from the passenger area, that region became fair game for a drug search under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. See United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 825, 102 S. Ct. 2157, 2173, 72 L. Ed. 2d 572 (1982)
The fact that the evidence of interstate travel was adduced in the defense case, rather than in the prosecution's case, is of no consequence. The court of appeals may properly consider all evidence presented when confronting a sufficiency challenge. See United States v. Arache, 946 F.2d 129, 138 (1st Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 948, 112 S. Ct. 1507, 117 L. Ed. 2d 645 (1992)