Opinion ID: 3003638
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Denial of Request for New Appointed Counsel

Text: Sims first challenges the denial of his request that the court appoint him a different attorney, which he made at the beginning of the trial. He contends that his request was timely, and that in view of the disagreements and lack of communication between himself and the attorney that he wished to replace, the denial of his motion left him unable to present a defense. We review the court’s ruling for abuse of discretion. E.g., United States v. Harris, 394 F.3d 543, 551-52 (7th Cir. 2005). We find no abuse of discretion in the denial of Sims’s request. The district court addressed his motion in a manner fully consistent with the three-part inquiry set forth in cases such as United States v. Van Waeyenberghe, 481 F.3d 951, 959 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 277 (2007). First, the court heard Sims out on the reasons why he was asking for a new attorney. Second, the court took into account the timeliness of his request. And third, after hearing from both Sims and his counsel as to their interactions in preparation for the trial, the court considered whether a complete breakdown in communication had occurred that would prevent Sims from presenting an adequate defense. The court was eminently reasonable in concluding that the motion was untimely, given that it was not made until the morning of trial and Sims had made no prior complaints about No. 08-2400 9 his counsel’s performance.5 Although Sims complained that his attorney had not spent adequate time with him in preparing the defense case for trial, after hearing the multiple meetings that counsel described, the court reasonably concluded that the complaint lacked merit. Further, in view of the fact that Sims and his counsel had met on no less than three occasions in the week before trial, the court reasonably determined that there had not been a breakdown in communication between the two that would stand in the way of Sims’s defense. The court believed that Sims’s motion constituted nothing more than a delay tactic, and the evidence supports that determination. Finally, Sims has made no showing that he was prejudiced by the denial of his motion, i.e., that he was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel. See id. B. Admission of Video Recordings of Controlled Buys Sims contends that the admission of the video recordings of the four meetings in which Barnes made 5 Sims contends that he had aired his dissatisfaction with counsel previously, when he was arraigned on the superseding indictment. The transcript of that arraignment has not been included in the record. In any case, the district court still was within its rights to conclude that the request for a new attorney was untimely, given that the arraignment on the superseding indictment (which dropped Davis as a codefendant in the wake of her guilty plea) took place just ten days prior to trial. 10 No. 08-2400 controlled purchases of heroin from him violated his rights under the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause. Sims concedes that his own statements on the recordings were admissible. Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(A); e.g., United States v. Tolliver, 454 F.3d 660, 665 (7th Cir. 2006). But he contends that Barnes’s statements were not. Barnes, of course, had died before trial and could not be cross-examined. Sims contests the district court’s determination that her statements were admissible to place Sims’s remarks in context. See id. at 666 (“State- ments providing context for other admissible statements are not hearsay because they are not offered for their truth.”); see also United States v. York, 572 F.3d 415, 427 (7th Cir. 2009). He insists that “there was no context needed for the non-testimonial statements and therefore any statement of the declarant (the confidential informant, Barnes) was testimonial and subject to the Confrontation Clause.” Sims Brief at 10. The videos were properly admitted. Barnes’ statements on the videos were not offered for their truth and were not testimonial as Sims contends. They were properly admitted to place Sims’s statements in context, see United States v. James, 487 F.3d 518, 524 (7th Cir. 2007) (coll. cases), and we have no reason to question the court’s judgment that it would be helpful for the jury to have that context as opposed to hearing only one half of conversations that were two-sided. The district court prudently allowed the jury to hear only those statements that Barnes made while in Sims’s presence. The jury heard nothing that Sims might have said to herself or to No. 08-2400 11 the police during her approach to or departure from the residence on any of the four occasions. Moreover, the court properly instructed the jury that Barnes’s statements were not to be considered for their truth but rather solely for the context they provided for Sims’s statements. See United States v. McClain, 934 F.2d 822, 832 (7th Cir. 1991). C. Sufficiency of Evidence that Sims Possessed Firearm Found in Couch Sims contends that the government did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he possessed the gun found under the seat cushion of a couch in the living room of the residence where he conducted his business with Barnes. Although none of the videos showed Sims handling the gun, it was discovered in a location within arm’s reach of where Sims was seen packaging heroin on the videos. But in view of evidence that the house at 2472 Adams Street was not in his name but the name of his sister, and in view of the additional fact that his driver’s license reflected a different address, Sims contends that the evidence raised insurmountable doubt about whether he possessed the weapon or the home’s registered owner did. Of course, we are obliged to view the evidence in a light most favorable to the government, and we will reverse the conviction for insufficiency of the evidence only if no reasonable factfinder could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Sims possessed the weapon. E.g., United States v. Blanchard, 542 F.3d 1133, 1154 (7th Cir. 2008). 12 No. 08-2400 The evidence was more than adequate to support the jury’s finding that the weapon was within Sims’s dominion and control. See id. Although Sims’s name was not on the title to the residence and his driver’s license bore a different address, those facts by no means foreclosed the possibility that he possessed the weapon found in that residence. All four videos showed him packaging and distributing heroin in the living room of 2472 Adams Street, sitting on a couch within arm’s reach of where the gun was stuffed under the cushion of an adjacent sofa. Moreover, a service invoice and a Money Gram receipt found in his car showed his address as 2472 Adams. In view of that evidence, the jury could reasonably conclude that Sims in fact lived at the Adams address and could reasonably find beyond a reasonable doubt that he possessed the gun found in the living room sofa at that address. See United States v. Seymour, 519 F.3d 700, 715 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 527 (2008); United States v. Castillo, 406 F.3d 806, 812-13 (7th Cir. 2005). D. Sufficiency of Identification of Defendant on Videos We may make short work of Sims’s contention that the evidence is “ambiguous” as to whether he is the person captured on video distributing heroin to Barnes. Sims Brief 13. The jury was perfectly able to compare the videos with Sims’s visage, and it obviously concluded that he was the person seen in the videos. The district judge himself had no doubt that it was Sims, remarking at sentencing that Sims was “seen on the videotape disNo. 08-2400 13 tributing drugs in these controlled purchases to the confidential informant.” R. 108 at 42. Sims had also been photographed outside of the Adams Street residence while it was being searched, and that photograph was identified by Detective Smith and admitted into evidence. Smith himself formally identified Sims as the person he and his fellow officers had arrested at 2472 Adams on March 25, 2006, as did Detectives Jolly and Martens, who had participated in the search of the residence. E. Conversion of Cash Found in Sims’s Possession into Heroin Sims next contends that his Guidelines offense level and sentencing range were the product of an inappropriately high drug quantity. The district court, as we noted earlier, held him responsible not only for the amounts of heroin that he sold to Barnes in the four controlled buys and that were found in his possession (and that of Davis) at the time of his arrest, but an additional amount corresponding to the total of $6,139 in cash found in his residence (less $20 in controlled buy money that Barnes had given Sims for the fourth purchase of heroin on the day of his arrest). Sims contends that it was unreasonable for the court to assume that all of the cash found in the house, and in particular the $5,120 found underneath the sofa cushion in the living room, was the product of heroin sales. The district court’s drug quantity determination is a finding of fact that we review for clear error. E.g., United States v. Longstreet, 567 F.3d 911, 924 (7th Cir. 2009). 14 No. 08-2400 The court did not err, clearly or otherwise, in converting all of the cash discovered in the living room into a corresponding amount of heroin and adding that to the total drug quantity for which Sims was accountable. When there is a sufficient basis to believe that cash found in a defendant’s possession was derived from drug sales, a court properly includes the drug equivalent of that cash in the drug-quantity calculation. United States v. Rivera, 6 F.3d 431, 446 (7th Cir. 1993). Sims himself concedes that the cash found on top of the sofa was properly found to be the fruit of heroin sales, and there was more than sufficient evidence to support the same finding as to the cash found underneath the sofa cushion. Both quantities of cash were found in or on the living room couches (along with a variety of drug-related paraphernalia) where Sims prepared and packaged the heroin and conducted his sales. Detective Smith’s testimony established that Sims had a longstanding reputation as a heroin trafficker, and Sims had apparently held no other job since the 1970s. Dorothy Davis, according to Smith, had been dealing heroin on Sims’s behalf for at least two years. There was no hint that Sims’s sales were situational or isolated. To the contrary, the evidence reflected, in the district court’s words, a persistent “drum beat of drug dealing” that had gone on for years if not decades. R. 108 at 53. If anything, Sims is fortunate that he was not held to account for a much greater quantity of heroin. No. 08-2400 15 F. Reasonableness of the sentence Finally, Sims contends that his sentence is unreasonable. The 106-month sentence that the district court imposed was within the range advised by the Sentencing Guidelines. Nonetheless, Sims contends that the sentence is excessive in view of his age and failing health. Sims has not rebutted the presumption of reason- ableness that we apply to his within-Guidelines sentence. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-63 (2007); United States v. Mykytiuk, 415 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir. 2005). Given Sims’s lengthy history of heroin trafficking, a substantial sentence was called for both to account for the gravity of his crimes and to protect the community. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A) & (C). The fact that Smith was middle-aged by the time he was convicted and sentenced did not by itself support a sentence below the Guidelines range. And whatever Smith’s physical ailments may have been, because Sims had not disclosed them to his counsel until the day of sentencing, his counsel was unable to make a record of such ailments sufficient to warrant more serious consideration.6 The sentencing transcript makes plain that the district court understood its discretion to impose a sentence outside of the advisory Guidelines range, attached no presumption of reasonableness to that range, 6 The presentence report otherwise disclosed that Sims suffered from high blood pressure, for which he was not taking medication, and had a heroin addiction, for which he had never before sought treatment. PSR ¶¶ 65, 67. 16 No. 08-2400 and considered the sentencing factors set forth in section 3553(a). The sentence it imposed was a reasonable one.