Opinion ID: 51016
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: McCorvey’s Appeal

Text: We review a district court’s decision to admit evidence for abuse of 3 McCorvey also challenges the conclusion that the firearm was “in connection with” drug distribution and whether the court plainly erred in imposing a sentence that was sufficient and “a greater sentence should not be necessary.” Upon review, we affirm without further discussion. See United States v. Garcia-Delgado, 184 Fed. Appx. 851 (11th Cir. 2006) (unpublished) (holding that the court’s statement that the sentence was “sufficient, and a greater sentence is not necessary” did not contradict the requirements of § 3553(a)); United States v. Rhind, 289 F.3d 690, 695 (11th Cir. 2002) (holding that to apply the firearm enhancement, the firearm need only “reflect the context of the defendant’s possession,” and the defendant’s ability to use the firearm to promote the controlled substance offense). 6 discretion. United States v. Smith, 459 F.3d 1276, 1295 (11th Cir. 2006). A district court’s refusal to give a particular jury charge also is reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Lee, 68 F.3d 1267, 1273 (11th Cir. 1995). We review a district court’s determination that the defendant is able to pay the fine for clear error. United States v. McGuinness, 451 F.3d 1302, 1307 (11th Cir. 2006); United States v. Singh, 335 F.3d 1321, 1323 n.1 (11th Cir. 2003).
McCorvey argues that the court misapplied Rule 404(b) and admitted prejudicial and irrelevant evidence, leaving the jury to picture him as a violent repeat offender. He contends that his prior convictions were not relevant to the issue of intent because intent was not an element of the 922(g) offense. He further notes that he stipulated that he had a prior felony conviction, and, therefore, the prior convictions were not admissible to prove this element of his § 922 offense. Although he acknowledged that this court permits evidence of a prior conviction to show knowing possession of a firearm, he asserts that it was not probative in the instant case because there was no information about the prior conviction and it is unknown whether the prior conviction was similar. McCorvey admits that intent is an element of his controlled substance offense, but he asserts that his prior conviction for possession of a controlled substance is not probative of his intent to 7 commit possession with intent to distribute, as the two offenses have different elements. Under Rule 404(b), “[e]vidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident . . . .” Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). The rule is one of “inclusion.” United States v. Jernigan, 341 F.3d 1273, 1280 (11th Cir. 2003). As this court has explained, evidence is admissible under Rule 404(b) if: “(1) it is relevant to an issue other than the defendant’s character; (2) the prior act is proved sufficiently to permit a jury determination the defendant committed the act; and (3) the evidence’s probative value cannot be substantially outweighed by its undue prejudice, and it must satisfy Federal Rule of Evidence 403.”4 United States v. Eckhardt, 466 F.3d 938, 946 (11th Cir. 2006); Jernigan, 341 F.3d at 1280. McCorvey does not challenge whether the prior convictions were proven sufficiently; thus only the first and third prongs are at issue. As to the first prong, we conclude that the prior convictions were relevant to 4 Rule 403 provides, “[a]lthough relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” 8 show intent and absence of mistake. McCorvey’s defense was that his prints were not found on the evidence, that the evidence belonged to a previous resident of the house, and that he did not knowingly possess the firearm. Based on this defense, McCorvey placed his intent and lack of mistake at issue. Jernigan, 341 F.3d at 1281-82. Thus, the evidence was admissible to prove intent and absence of mistake. Moreover, the fact that the prior conviction involved possession of a controlled substance and that the instant offense involved possession with intent to distribute does not render the prior conviction inadmissible. See United States v. Matthews, 431 F.3d 1296, 1311 (11th Cir. 2005) (explaining that a prior conviction for possession was relevant to the instant charge for possession with intent to distribute); United States v. Butler, 102 F.3d 1191 (11th Cir. 1997). Furthermore, evidence of a prior possession of a firearm is admissible to show knowledge in a prosecution for knowingly possessing a similar weapon. Jernigan, 341 F.3d at 1281. With respect to the third prong, the probative value of the evidence outweighed the prejudicial value. Despite McCorvey’s claim that the evidence caused the jury to view him as a violent repeat offender, the jury only heard about two prior convictions - one for controlled substances and one for firearm possession. The jury did not learn any details of the convictions, or of McCorvey’s 9 lengthy criminal history. Thus, the evidence was not prejudicial. Moreover, the court instructed the jury that the evidence was admissible for the limited purpose of showing intent and absence of mistake, and not to determine whether McCorvey committed the instant offense. Jernigan, 341 F.3d at 1283. Therefore, the court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the prior convictions. Even if the court erred, any error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence against McCorvey. United States v. Gunn, 369 F.3d 1229, 1236 (11th Cir. 2004); United States v. Harriston, 329 F.3d 779, 789 (11th Cir. 2003) (stating that error is harmless “where there is overwhelming evidence of guilt” or “the error had no substantial influence on the outcome and [other] sufficient evidence . . . supports the verdict”). Police found drugs and drug paraphernalia in McCorvey’s bedroom, in a house listed in McCorvey’s name, and on the bed with McCorvey’s wallet. In light of this evidence, permitting the jury to hear about two prior convictions was harmless.
McCorvey next argues that the court improperly admitted testimony that investigators found no legitimate source of income because there was no foundation for the testimony as required by Rule 602 and 701. Under Rule 602, “[a] witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is 10 introduced sufficient to introduce a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. Evidence to prove personal knowledge may, but need not, consist of the witness’ own testimony.” Fed. R. Evid. 602. A witness’s lay opinion is admissible if, inter alia, it is “rationally based on the perception of the witness.” Fed. R. Evid. 701. Here, the court did not abuse its discretion. Bruster testified that he was involved in the investigation and that he was unable to find any legitimate source of income. Thus, Bruster had personal knowledge, based on his investigation, and his testimony satisfied Rule 602. Moreover, even if there was error, that error was harmless because, as discussed above, the evidence against McCorvey was overwhelming. Harriston, 329 F.3d at 789.
In his next argument, McCorvey asserts that the court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of possession because the evidence was consistent with the offenses of simple possession and a rational juror could have found him guilty of the lesser offense. A defendant is entitled to an instruction on a lesser included offense if “there was a reasonable basis on which the jury could find the defendant guilty of [the 11 lesser offense] beyond a reasonable doubt yet entertain a reasonable doubt [as to the greater offense].” United States v. Catchings, 922 F.2d 777, 780 (11th Cir. 1991). As this court has explained, in the context of possession and distribution of drugs, where the factual issues are the same for both the lesser offense of possession and the greater offense of distribution, the instruction on possession is not required. Id. at 780-81; United States v. Pirolli, 742 F.2d 1382, 1387 (11th Cir. 1984). Here, the facts involved in the two offenses were the same, and therefore, the instruction was not required. See Lee, 68 F.3d at 1273. Moreover, McCorvey’s reliance on United States v. Gibbs, 904 F.2d 52 (D.C. Cir. 1990), is misplaced. In Gibbs, police found only about 15 grams of drugs, but did not find any drug paraphernalia. In contrast, in this case, there was evidence that police found baggies, scales, and cutting agents, which were consistent with drug distribution. Moreover, there was no evidence in the instant case of personal use. Lee, 68 F.3d at 1273. Accordingly, the court did not abuse its discretion by denying the instruction.
Finally, McCorvey argues that the court erroneously determined that he would be able to pay a fine below the guidelines range because the record reflected 12 his debt and the PSI recognized his inability to pay. Under U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2, “[t]he court shall impose a fine in all cases, except where the defendant establishes that he is unable to pay and is not likely to become able to pay any fine” “even with the use of a reasonable installment schedule.” U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2(a) & (e)(1). McCorvey has the burden of proving inability to pay. McGuinness, 451 F.3d at 1307; United States v. Hernandez, 160 F.3d 661, 665 (11th Cir. 1998). Here, the district court found that McCorvey would not be able to pay a fine under the guidelines range, but that he was able to pay a smaller fine, which contradicted the PSI’s findings. The court made no other factual findings except to adopt the PSI. This court has held that the sentencing court is not required to make specific findings of fact with respect to the Sentencing Guideline factors as long as “‘the record reflect[s] the district court’s consideration of the pertinent factors prior to imposing the fine.’” United States v. Lombardo, 35 F.3d 526, 530 (11th Cir.1994). These factors include: the defendant’s income; earning capacity; financial resources; the burden on the defendant and his dependents; pecuniary loss inflicted on others as a result of the offense; whether restitution is ordered; the need to deprive the defendant of illegal gains; and the need to promote respect for the law, 13 provide just punishment, and adequate deterrence. U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2(d). If it is unclear from the record as to the court’s reasons for imposing a fine, this court should remand the case so that the court can make the necessary factual findings. United States v. Rowland, 906 F.2d 621, 624 (11th Cir. 1990). Here, the court reviewed and adopted the PSI, but then found that employment opportunities in prison and after release would enable McCorvey to pay a fine in the amount of $800. McCorvey has offered nothing to show his inability to pay this small amount. As the court noted, McCorvey is only 48 years old, has a college education, and has no medical conditions that would prevent him from being able to work while incarcerated and after release. Thus, it appears that the court sufficiently considered the necessary factors before imposing a fine. McCorvey has offered nothing other than the PSI’s findings of his outstanding debt as evidence of his inability to pay.