Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/722/605/51226/
Timestamp: 2019-08-18 11:30:14
Document Index: 273108852

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 841', '§ 841', '§ 2111', '§ 802', '§ 802', '§ 841']

United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Jimmy Don Winkle, Defendant-appellant, 722 F.2d 605 (10th Cir. 1983) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Tenth Circuit › 1983 › United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Jimmy Don Winkle, Defendant-appellant
United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Jimmy Don Winkle, Defendant-appellant, 722 F.2d 605 (10th Cir. 1983)
US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit - 722 F.2d 605 (10th Cir. 1983)
This is an appeal by defendant, Jimmy Don Winkle, from a conviction on two counts of knowingly and intentionally distributing controlled substances, methylphenidate (Ritalin) and oxymorphone (Numorphan), in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (1).1 Defendant makes three arguments on appeal: (1) he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel; (2) the Government failed to rebut his prima facie case of entrapment, entitling him to an acquittal; and (3) the trial court erred in not admitting evidence demonstrating that it was legal for the defendant to possess the controlled substances.
Mr. Cox again sought to obtain controlled substances from the defendant on June 9, 1981. On this date, the Government provided Cox with $400.00 in marked bills to make a purchase. Cox obtained controlled substances, Ritalin tablets and Numorphan, from the defendant and defendant accepted the $400.00. The defendant was subsequently arrested, and charged with unlawfully distributing Schedule II controlled substances and unlawfully possessing such substances with intent to distribute.2 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (1).
There remains, however, a more serious specific claim of conflict of interests. As noted, the record reveals that Mr. Thompson's prior representation of Cox created a doubt whether the defendant's representation was adequate. The Sixth Amendment entitles a defendant in a criminal case to the effective assistance of competent counsel. Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 53 S. Ct. 55, 77 L. Ed. 158 (1932); United States v. King, 664 F.2d 1171, 1172 (10th Cir. 1981). The constitutional guarantee demands that defense counsel "exercise the skill, judgment and diligence of a reasonably competent defense attorney." Dyer v. Crisp, 613 F.2d 275, 278 (10th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 945, 100 S. Ct. 1342, 63 L. Ed. 2d 779 (1980). To establish a violation of the guarantee a defendant must show that his counsel failed to meet that standard and that the inadequacy " 'has had or threatens some adverse effect upon the effectiveness of counsel's representation or has produced some other prejudice to the defense.' " United States v. Glick, 710 F.2d 639, 644 (10th Cir. 1983) (quoting United States v. Morrison, 449 U.S. 361, 365, 101 S. Ct. 665, 668, 66 L. Ed. 2d 564 (1981)).
However, there are special considerations which apply where a defendant's counsel has a conflict of interests. In Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475, 488, 98 S. Ct. 1173, 1180, 55 L. Ed. 2d 426 (1978), the Court said that it read Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 62 S. Ct. 457, 86 L. Ed. 680 (1942), as holding that whenever a trial court improperly requires joint representation over timely objection, reversal is automatic. The Court stressed that in cases of joint representation of conflicting interests, the evil "is in what the advocate finds himself compelled to refrain from doing." Holloway, supra, 435 U.S. at 490, 98 S. Ct. at 1182 (emphasis in original).
In Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 348, 100 S. Ct. 1708, 1718, 64 L. Ed. 2d 333 (1980), the Court discussed possible conflicts which inhere in almost every instance of multiple representation, concluding that the defendant who does object at trial to multiple representation must have the opportunity to show that potential conflicts impermissibly imperil his right to a fair trial. The Court held that " [i]n order to establish a violation of the Sixth Amendment, a defendant who raised no objection at trial must demonstrate that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer's performance." Id. at 348, 100 S. Ct. at 1718 (footnote omitted). Further the Court there made it clear that "a defendant who shows that a conflict of interest actually affected the adequacy of his representation need not demonstrate prejudice in order to obtain relief." Id. at 349-50, 100 S. Ct. at 1719.
These principles concerning conflicts of interest are not restricted to cases of joint representation of co-defendants at a single trial. See, e.g., Wood v. Georgia, 450 U.S. 261, 101 S. Ct. 1097, 67 L. Ed. 2d 220 (1981) (potential conflict between defendants' interest and the interest of their employer who paid trial counsel). The potential conflict due to what an attorney may feel he should refrain from doing, Holloway, supra, 435 U.S. at 490, 98 S. Ct. at 1181, is a potential problem in cases where a defendant's attorney previously represented a Government witness. We are persuaded by the views expressed in Ross v. Heyne, 638 F.2d 979, 983 (7th Cir. 1980), that an actual conflict would arise where defense counsel is unable to cross-examine a Government witness effectively because the attorney also represented the witness. See also United States v. Martinez, 630 F.2d 361, 363-64 (5th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 922, 101 S. Ct. 1373, 67 L. Ed. 2d 351 (1981); United States v. Morando, 628 F.2d 535, 536 (9th Cir. 1980).8
In sum, we conclude we should apply the conflicts principles from the cases of multiple representation of defendants here where the defense counsel in this criminal trial had represented the principal Government witness in litigation with a factual relationship to some issues in this criminal case. Therefore if the defendant can show that his attorney's previous representation of the witness adversely affected the adequacy of the defendant's representation, then defendant need not demonstrate prejudice to obtain relief. Cuyler v. Sullivan, supra, 446 U.S. at 349-50, 100 S. Ct. at 1718-19.
We must agree that the record presents a substantial problem on the conflict question. There was an apparent difficulty confronting defense counsel when he questioned his former client's credibility, and there was an obvious difficulty about what he may have been "compelled to refrain from doing." Holloway, supra 435 U.S. at 490, 98 S. Ct. at 1182 (emphasis added). Further, counsel seems to have faced a serious question on the attorney-client privilege. The trial judge referred to Thompson's problems and then sustained the Government's objection to the line of questioning by defense counsel. The trial court did not, however, make an inquiry and a determination whether the apparent conflict was a real one adversely affecting defense counsel's performance, and whether there was a valid waiver of such a conflict by the defendant so that counsel could proceed.
[i]n order for a defendant effectively to waive his right to conflict-free counsel, the trial judge should affirmatively participate in the waiver decision by eliciting a statement in narrative form from the defendant indicating that he fully understands the nature of the situation and has knowingly and intelligently made the decision to proceed with the challenged counsel. United States v. Garcia, 517 F.2d 272 (5th Cir. 1975); see also Gray v. Estelle, 574 F.2d 209, 213 (5th Cir. 1978); United States v. Mahar, 550 F.2d 1005 (5th Cir. 1978).
Where the conflict of interests question is raised by defense counsel as in the Martinez case, or by the defendant himself, we are persuaded that the affirmative steps by the trial judge, outlined in that opinion as quoted above, are necessary. Furthermore where the trial judge knows or reasonably should know that a particular conflict exists, the court should itself initiate such an inquiry, even if defendant and his counsel do not make an objection raising the conflict question. See Wood v. Georgia, supra, 450 U.S. at 272, 101 S. Ct. at 1103; Cuyler v. Sullivan, supra, 446 U.S. at 347, 100 S. Ct. at 1717. Here the trial court discussed the conflict questions with counsel at a bench conference, and stopped the line of questioning which could have infringed on the attorney client privilege, sustaining the Government's objection to the questioning. However since this occurred at the bench conference, see Appendix 614,10 there was no direct discussion with the defendant showing his awareness of the problem and whether he expressed an objection or waiver.
While the record thus left this serious question open without a discussion by the court with the defendant, and without a clear determination on the conflict of interests question, we cannot agree that reversal and a new trial are now mandated in the circumstances of this case. We instead are vacating the judgment and remanding so that an inquiry and determination on the question can be made by the trial court, in light of the Supreme Court's disposition in a similar situation in Wood v. Georgia, supra, 450 U.S. at 273-74, 101 S. Ct. at 1104-05. The district court should hold a hearing to determine whether the conflict of interests, which the record strongly suggests, actually existed and adversely affected defense counsel's performance at the time of trial.11 If the court finds that an actual conflict did exist which adversely affected defense counsel's performance, and that there was no valid waiver of the right to counsel free of the conflict,12 then the court should order a new trial; otherwise, the judgment should be reinstated. See Wood v. Georgia, supra, 450 U.S. at 273-74, 101 S. Ct. at 1104-05; Cuyler v. Sullivan, supra, 446 U.S. at 348-50, 100 S. Ct. at 1718-19.
The defendant argues that his testimony established that he was entrapped as a matter of law, and that the trial court therefore erred in denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal. Appellant's Brief at 39. Defendant reasons that he established a prima facie case of entrapment and that the burden then fell on the Government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not entrapped. See United States v. Hill, 626 F.2d 1301, 1303-04 (5th Cir. 1980).
We agree that this is the proper rule on the burden of proof, but we cannot agree that the Government failed to present sufficient evidence to make entrapment a jury question here. As noted, the defendant offered substantial evidence of entrapment. However, the Government's evidence directly conflicted with portions of the defendant's testimony on entrapment. The Government could still rely on the testimony of Cox and its other evidence to meet its burden. The Government need not necessarily come forward with more evidence after the defendant has put on his case on entrapment. We are satisfied that the evidence created a question of fact so that the issue was properly one for the jury. See United States v. Hayes, 477 F.2d 868, 873 (10th Cir. 1973). The trial court gave an appropriate jury instruction and the jury resolved the question against defendant. We find no error in the denial of the motion for a judgment of acquittal.
We must agree that there was an arguable basis for admission of the evidence as having relevance to the issue of the requisite intent, i.e. that the defendant knowingly and intentionally distributed the controlled substances. The jury might more likely believe that the defendant intended to commit the crime of unlawful distribution, and further that he was predisposed to do so, if he illegally possessed the substances. However, even assuming the admissibility of the evidence here, we feel that any error in its exclusion did not affect the substantial rights of the defendant. See 28 U.S.C. § 2111; Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a). The defense was entrapment and the circumstances about it were thoroughly developed in the evidence and argued to the jury. Hence any error in the evidentiary ruling was harmless.
Both oxymorphone and methylphenidate are Schedule II controlled substances today, 21 C.F.R. Sec. 1308.12 (1982), as they were when defendant was arrested. 21 C.F.R. Sec. 1308.12 (1981). Oxymorphone is in the opiate family, id. Sec. 1308.12(b) (1), and thus is a narcotic drug. 21 U.S.C. § 802(16). Methylphenidate is a stimulant, 21 C.F.R. Sec. 1308.12(d), and not a narcotic drug. 21 U.S.C. § 802(16). The penalties for distributing or possessing with intent to distribute are potentially greater for narcotic drugs. 21 U.S.C. § 841(b) (1)
There are affidavits attached to Appellant's Brief which detail numerous complaints about trial counsel. We do not consider these matters as they are not a part of our record. See United States v. Carlson, 561 F.2d 105, 109 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 973, 98 S. Ct. 529, 54 L. Ed. 2d 464 (1977); see also United States v. Bosby, 675 F.2d 1174, 1181 n. 9 (11th Cir. 1982); Scarborough v. Kellum, 525 F.2d 931, 933 n. 4 (5th Cir. 1976); if there is any merit to the assertions, they may be presented in a collateral proceeding and our refusal to consider them on this appeal is without prejudice to such proceedings. Smith v. United States, 343 F.2d 539, 541 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 861, 86 S. Ct. 122, 15 L. Ed. 2d 99 (1965)
We also find the history of Brown v. United States, 625 F.2d 210 (9th Cir. 1979) (per curiam), relevant here. In Brown the court of appeals had affirmed a denial of post-conviction relief despite a claim of ineffective representation due to a conflict of interest arising from simultaneous representation of a defendant and a Government witness; the court had reasoned that there was no prejudice shown from the dual representation
The Supreme Court vacated the judgment, 446 U.S. 962, 100 S. Ct. 2936, 64 L. Ed. 2d 821 (1980), for further consideration in light of Cuyler v. Sullivan. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case so that the district court could first rule on the question. 625 F.2d at 212. The trial court found that a conflict existed, but that it did not adversely affect counsel's performance because of the overwhelming evidence of guilt. In Brown v. United States, 665 F.2d 271, 272 (9th Cir. 1982), the court of appeals again remanded, reasoning that the weight of evidence cannot of itself justify denial of relief.