Opinion ID: 700072
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Issues in Blackwell's supplemental brief

Text: 8 Blackwell seeks to have his conviction reversed based upon numerous instances in which he claims that counsel provided ineffective assistance or no assistance. We do not reach claims of ineffective assistance on direct appeal unless ineffectiveness conclusively appears from the record, which is not the case here. United States v. Grandison, 783 F.2d 1152, 1156-57 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 845 (1986). Such claims may be raised in a motion under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255 (1988).
9 Blackwell contends that the indictment was invalid because it was issued after Special Agent Warren testified before the grand jury that Blackwell owned the vehicle. Because this issue was not raised in the district court, this Court's review is for plain error. Fed.R.Civ.P. 51; Hafner v. Brown, 983 F.2d 570, 578 (4th Cir.1992); see United States v. Olano, 61 U.S.L.W. 4421, 4424 (U.S.1993). 10 The challenged statement is: Ward recovered a loaded Raven Arms .25 caliber pistol bearing Serial Number 1453013 from Black well's vehicle. Blackwell asserts that without this statement, the grand jury would not have returned an indictment against him. Because possession of a firearm may be determined without proof that the defendant owned the vehicle or controlled the area in which the contraband was found, this contention is without merit. 11
12 Blackwell states, without elaboration, that his criminal history category was erroneously increased because some convictions were treated as felonies when they were in fact misdemeanors. He also contends that the district court improperly applied the sentencing enhancing provisions of 18 U.S.C.A. Sec. 924(e)(1) (West Supp.1995) and United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, Sec. 4B1.4 (Nov.1993). Section 924(e)(1) provides a minimum sentence of fifteen years for a person who has violated 18 U.S.C.A. Sec. 922(g) and has three prior convictions for violent felonies or serious drug offenses which were committed on different occasions. 18 U.S.C.A. Sec. 924(e)(1). The indictment lists Blackwell's convictions of crimes punishable by more than one year of imprisonment, including four counts of possession with intent to sell and deliver cocaine, four counts of sell and deliver cocaine, four counts of possession of cocaine, and two counts of conspiracy to sell and deliver cocaine. 2 These crimes are felonies. See N.C. Gen.Stat. Sec. 90-95(a), (d) (1993). Also, during cross-examination, Blackwell admitted that he could not dispute that he had at least four prior felony convictions. On the record before us, we find no plain error in the enhancement of Blackwell's sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. Sec. 924(e)(1). See Olano, 61 U.S.L.W. at 4424.
13 Blackwell's final contention is that the jury instructions improperly shifted the burden of proof from the Government to him to prove ownership of the gun. Although the jury instructions are not part of the record on appeal, we find no merit to this argument. The Government presented evidence that Blackwell admitted he owned the gun and had obtained it five days earlier. Also, the court repeatedly informed the jury that the Government had the burden of proving Blackwell's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Because the jury could have reasonably found that the Government proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Blackwell owned the gun, Blackwell has failed to prove plain error in the jury instructions. See Olano, 61 U.S.L.W. at 4424. 14 In conclusion, we grant Blackwell's motion to file a pro se supplemental brief and affirm Blackwell's conviction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED