Opinion ID: 582735
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Was There Sufficient Evidence to Support Appellant's

Text: 31 Conviction for Use of a Firearm During a Drug 32 Trafficking Crime? 33 Appellant next contends that there was no evidence to suggest that the firearms seized from his apartment were used or carried during or in relation to the alleged drug trafficking crimes, as required under § 924(c). He argues that [b]oth 'uses' and 'carries' ... are active verbs implying direct physical action, Appellant's Brief at 26, and that mere possession is insufficient to support a conviction under the statute. He further argues that there was never any evidence presented at trial as to who controlled the guns--himself or Mr. Alvarez. 34 As noted above, appellate review of this issue requires the court to consider, in the light most favorable to the prosecution, all the evidence presented at trial and any reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. United States v. Frank, 901 F.2d 846, 848 (10th Cir.1990). Based on our thorough review of the record, we think there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions. 35 The Tenth Circuit, like most other circuits, has recognized that 36 a defendant can use a firearm within the meaning of § 924(c)(1) without firing, brandishing, or displaying it.... [T]he uses element of § 924(c)(1) is met when the defendant has ready access to the firearm and the firearm was an integral part of his criminal undertaking and its availability increased the likelihood that the criminal undertaking would succeed. 37 McKinnell, 888 F.2d at 674-75 (emphasis added) (citations omitted). In this case, the firearms at issue were found in appellant's bedroom, in the same apartment where over half a kilogram of cocaine mixture was stored. Many circuits have held that this kind of physical proximity, coupled with the understanding that guns have become tools of the drug trade, is enough to support a jury's inference that the guns played an integral role in appellant's criminal enterprise. See United States v. Torres, 901 F.2d 205, 241-46 (2d Cir.) (gun stored under mattress in a room containing drugs could reasonably be considered an integral part of defendant's criminal undertaking since it might have served to protect the cocaine and cash stored in the apartment), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 273, 112 L.Ed.2d 229 (1990); United States v. Alvarado, 882 F.2d 645, 653-54 (2d Cir.1989) (jury could reasonably infer that guns locked in safe were there to protect money and drugs in the event drug deal went sour, thus implicating § 924(c)(1)), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1071, 110 S.Ct. 1114, 107 L.Ed.2d 1021 (1990); United States v. Matra, 841 F.2d 837, 839, 841-43 (8th Cir.1988) (not unreasonable to infer that machine gun hidden under frame of waterbed served to protect defendant's cocaine and cash and was therefore used in relation to drug trafficking crime); United States v. LaGuardia, 774 F.2d 317, 319-20 (8th Cir.1985) (evidence of weapons found with cocaine and cash sufficient to support jury finding of § 924(c) violation, even though some of the weapons were not in the actual possession of the defendant). 38 In United States v. Martinez, 912 F.2d 419, 420 (10th Cir.1990), this court upheld a § 924(c)(1) conviction where the police found an unloaded revolver, currency, and over $40,000 worth of cocaine in a closed briefcase in defendant's room. The court cited a string of cases from other circuits upholding similar convictions. E.g., United States v. Munoz-Fabela, 896 F.2d 908, 911 (5th Cir.) (It is enough that the firearm was present at the drug-trafficking scene, that the weapon could have been used to protect or facilitate the operation, and that the presence of the weapon was in some way connected with drug trafficking.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 76, 112 L.Ed.2d 49 (1990). 39 In this case, the presence of the weapons at the scene was bolstered by testimony that appellant and his partner had been previously robbed of their cocaine. That, plus the fact that the weapons were displayed to at least one cocaine customer, supports the inference that the guns were an integral part of appellant's criminal undertaking, used to protect both money and drugs. Although there was testimony presented at trial for the proposition that the guns were obtained from drug purchasers merely as collateral for future payments, we cannot say that it was unreasonable for a jury to infer that appellant used the weapons to facilitate his drug trade. This is especially true in light of the fact that appellant retained possession of the weapons for at least three months and was carrying another weapon at the time of his arrest. Appellant's insistence that there was no evidence presented at trial as to who controlled the guns--both Mr. Alvarez and appellant lived in the same apartment--is unpersuasive. Fingerprint evidence established that appellant handled at least two of the ammunition clips for the Mini-14 rifle. In addition, Mr. Alvarez' testimony gave the jury sufficient grounds on which to base their conclusion that appellant did in fact control the weapons. 40 We therefore find that it was not unreasonable for the jury to conclude, as it did, that appellant used the weapons in the commission of a drug trafficking offense. 41