Opinion ID: 12447
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Crackhouse Statute (Wright)

Text: Wright challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(1) for maintaining a place for the distribution of a controlled substance or aiding and abetting the same. A conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 856(a) (the “crackhouse statute”) requires the government to show that the defendant (1) knowingly (2) opened or maintained a property (3) for the purpose of manufacturing, distributing, or using the drug. Gibson, 55 F.3d at 181. Only the second element is at issue in this case. 9 Although this circuit has previously encountered the “maintenance” element of Section 856(a)(1), the evidence presented in those cases allowed us to paint with a broader brush than the evidence in this case will permit. See United States v. Roberts, 913 F.2d 211 (5th Cir. 1990), cert. denied sub nom. Preston v. United States, 500 U.S. 955, 111 S. Ct. 2264 (1991); United States v. Onick, 889 F.2d 1425 (5th Cir. 1989), en banc reh’g denied, 894 F.2d 1335 (1990).5 During an undercover transaction on April 26, 1995, Wright told Officer Webster that he could also contact Darren Choice and Shawntee Cherry, Wright’s relatives, at 2939 School Place to purchase narcotics. Wright called the School Place apartment “our spot” and gave Webster the address as “the place from which he sold his dope.” That night Webster went to the address and bought crack from Cherry in the parking lot. Webster testified that Wright later told him that Shawntee Cherry “worked for him.” Donald Greer, Wright’s uncle and a co-defendant who pleaded guilty before trial, testified that Wright was known to sell drugs from “Shawn’s house” on School Place “in the projects.” Two and a half months later, Webster returned to the apartment. When Webster entered, Wright was lying on the couch. Wright motioned Webster in and instructed an unidentified man “to go to the closet and remove a plastic bag . . . and deliver it to Mr. Wright.” Wright then sold the crack to Webster. When the police searched 2939 School Place, they found a baggy containing 5 On several other occasions, we have considered the “for the purpose of” element, see Gibson, 55 F.3d at 181; United States v. Chen, 913 F.2d 183, 187-90 (5th Cir. 1990). 10 crack, along with a plate and a razor blade, more baggies, and white powdery residue, although these items were not directly linked to Wright. The record does not contain evidence Wright paid rent for the apartment or that he lived in the apartment. The apartment lease was in the name of Charisee Choice, another of Wright’s relatives. Wright argues that even if crack was distributed from the School Place apartment, there is no evidence that he “maintained” the apartment within the meaning of the statute. Although neither Roberts nor Onick squarely controls our disposition here, we draw guidance from them. Onick offers several hints as to the meaning of maintenance. In Onick, the evidence showed that the defendant lived in the house he was found to have maintained. Papers found at the house showed that the defendant listed it as his home address; clothes found there were labeled with his nickname, and bottles of prescription medicines bore his name; and he “selected clothing from one of the closets to wear to the police station.” 889 F.2d 1430. Based on this evidence, the court concluded that the defendant had “dominion and control” over the house, and thus had constructive possession of drugs in the house. Id. Against this factual backdrop, we held that “the jury could infer that Tolliver maintained the house because he lived there.” Id. at 1431.6 6 We reversed the conviction of another defendant in Onick who did not live at the house. Id. at 1431. We noted, however, that we did not “mean to suggest that living on the premises is either necessary or sufficient for conviction under this statute.” 889 F.2d at 1431 n.2. 11 In Roberts, this court gave a clear signal that the constructive possession concepts of “dominion and control” are relevant to the maintenance inquiry. Roberts, 913 F.2d at 221. The evidence in Roberts was strong: the defendant “paid most of the rent” on the condominium; he attempted to “swap” the condominium for another place; he was present when the police searched the place and was heard “issuing orders to the condominium’s occupants”; and a government informant had previously seen him “cutting cocaine” inside the residence. Id. From this evidence, the court concluded that the defendant “did exercise sufficient dominion and control” to support a finding that he “opened or maintained” the condominium. Id. Both Onick and Roberts suggest that dominion and control over a place are relevant to showing maintenance. See id.; Onick, 889 F.2d at 1431. Other circuits have gone further and held that evidence of dominion and control over or constructive possession of a place is sufficient to support a maintenance finding. See United States v. Basinger, 60 F.3d 1400, 1405 (9th Cir. 1995); United States v. Howell, 31 F.3d 740, 741 (8th Cir. 1994). We are wary of equating possession with maintenance by holding that any time the evidence would support a finding that the defendant was in constructive possession of a premises, the evidence would also support a conviction under the crackhouse statute when controlled substances are distributed from such premises. Indeed our opinion in Roberts suggests that not just any showing of dominion and control will suffice to support a 12 maintenance finding. We held that there was evidence that the defendant exercised “sufficient dominion and control” over the condominium, suggesting that dominion and control may fall short of maintenance. Roberts, 913 F.2d at 221 (emphasis added). We believe that the Roberts court properly qualified its holding. Congress could have, but did not, make it an offense to “possess” a place for the purpose of distributing controlled substances. “Maintain” connotes a degree of continuity and duration that is not an attribute of “possession.”7 See United States v. Clavis, 956 F.2d 1079, 1091 (11th Cir.)(listing duration and continuity as two factors to be taken into consideration in determining the maintenance issue), cert. denied sub nom. Edwards v. United States, 504 U.S. 990, 112 S. Ct. 2979 (1992), modified on other grounds, 977 F.2d 538 (11th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 998, 113 S. Ct. 1619 (1993). With this background in mind, we turn to whether there was sufficient evidence that Wright maintained the apartment on School Place. On one hand, the record is devoid of evidence that Wright lived at the apartment, leased the apartment, paid rent for the apartment, had such control over the apartment that he could lend it to others, or that the utilities or telephone service were in his name. 7 Compare Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 718 (1984) (defining to “maintain” as “to keep in an existing state: preserve from failure or decline; to sustain against opposition or danger: uphold and defend; to continue or persevere in: carry on, keep up) with id. at 918 (defining “possess” as “to instate as an owner . . . to have and hold as property). 13 On the other hand, the evidence demonstrates that Wright exercised some supervisory control over the apartment, shown by his instructions to the person who retrieved the crack from the closet and brought it to him and by the fact that Cherry, who lived in the apartment, worked for him. Supervisory control over the premises is one factor that this court has considered probative of “maintaining” a place. See Roberts, 913 F.2d at 221 (noting that the police heard the defendant giving orders to the occupants of the condominimum). The Eleventh Circuit has also recognized that acts of maintenance may include “supervising, protecting, [or] supplying food to those at the site . . . .” Clavis, 956 F.2d at 1091. Similarly, the Seventh Circuit in dictum emphasized that the statute “appears to be aimed, like the drug-kingpin statute, at persons who occupy a supervisory, managerial, or entrepreneurial role in a drug enterprise . . . .” United States v. Thomas, 956 F.2d 165, 166 (7th Cir. 1992)(citations omitted). The question in this case is whether the slim evidence of supervisory control over the apartment, in combination with the other slender reeds upon which the government relies, is sufficient to show that Wright “maintained” the apartment. Along with evidence that Wright exercised a supervisory role at the apartment, there is some evidence of the duration of Wright’s connection with the apartment: at least two and a half months passed between when Wright referred Officer Webster to the apartment (calling it “our spot”) and when Wright was in the apartment, selling crack to Officer Webster. There is also 14 evidence that Wright stored his crack in a closet at the apartment, which is not a common area. See Clavis, 956 F.2d at 1092 (noting that items owned by defendant convicted under Section 856(a)(1) were found in a locked closet); United States v. Williams, 923 F.2d 1397, 1403-04 (10th Cir. 1990) (emphasizing the fact that items connected to the defendant were found in a closet), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 925, 111 S. Ct. 2033 (1991). This case does not involve an isolated sale of crack from a location. Rather, all the evidence is consistent with Wright having participated in the maintenance of a crackhouse. Wright directed others to the crackhouse; called the location “our spot”; told Officer Webster that Cherry, who resided in the apartment, worked for him; and exercised dominion and control over the apartment by directing another person during a drug transaction and by storing his drugs in a closet in the apartment. Although any of these facts might be insufficient in isolation, they coalesce to support the jury’s finding here that Wright maintained 2939 School Place for the purpose of distributing crack cocaine in violation of Section 856(a)(1). We emphasize that whether a defendant has “maintained” a place is necessarily a fact-intensive issue that must be resolved on a case-by-case basis. In doing so, we must be mindful of the conditions under which crackhouse operations are often conducted. Drug dealers who maintain a location for the purpose of selling drugs may not avoid conviction under the crackhouse statute by simply ensuring that the lease or deed for the location and the 15 utilities, if any, are not in their name. See, e.g., United States v. Wood, 57 F.3d 913, 919 (10th Cir. 1995); Howell, 31 F.3d at 741; see also United States v. Lancaster, 968 F.2d 1250, 1254 (D.C. Cir. 1992). Where the evidence shows that over a period of time the defendant can direct the activities of and the people in a place, the jury may infer that he is involved in maintaining the place. Accordingly, we conclude that the evidence as a whole is sufficient to support the jury’s finding that Wright maintained 2939 School Place for the purpose of distributing cocaine base. C. Aiding and abetting the sale of crack cocaine near a public school (Morgan) The jury convicted Morgan of Count 14, which charged that Morgan, Jackson, and Rogers aided and abetted each other in the possession and distribution of crack near a public school on March 10, 1995. The record shows that Morgan referred Officer Webster to Rogers at 2831/2823 Carter for the purchase of crack. Webster went to the Carter address and was met by Ryan Jackson, whom Webster knew from a previous sale. Webster and Jackson negotiated the sale, Jackson got baggies of crack from Rogers, and Jackson and Webster drove to another location to complete the sale. Morgan appears to complain of his conviction because although he referred Webster to Rogers, Jackson actually handled the transaction. This argument is without merit. Aside from the fact that Rogers was in fact involved in the transaction, evidence at trial showed that Jackson worked for Rogers. This evidence is more than sufficient to support the conviction. 16