Opinion ID: 59687
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Motion to Suppress Davis’s Statements

Text: Davis argues that the district court should have suppressed his statements to ATF Special Agent Degree because that interrogation violated Davis’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Because Davis was charged with essentially the same offense in both state court and federal court, Davis argues that his invocation 5 of the right to counsel on the state firearm charge should apply to the federal firearm charge as well. This Court has recently addressed this issue and concluded that “where conduct violates laws of separate sovereigns, the offenses are distinct for purposes of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.” United States v. Burgest, ___ F.3d ___, No. 06-11351, slip op. at 6 (11th Cir. Mar. 13, 2008). Thus, when the two comparable charges originate in state and federal court, the “dual sovereignty doctrine” applies and the two offenses are different for Sixth Amendment purposes. See id. at 6-7. Under such circumstances, a defendant’s invocation of his right to counsel in the state criminal proceedings does “not attach to the uncharged federal . . . offenses at the time of the interview.” Id. at 7. Accordingly, under Burgest, Davis’s invocation of his right to counsel in the state court proceedings on the state firearm offense did not attach to the uncharged federal firearm offense at the time he agreed to speak with Special Agent Degree. Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying Davis’s motion to suppress his statements made to Special Agent Degree. For all these reasons, we affirm Davis’s firearm conviction and sentence. AFFIRMED. 6