Opinion ID: 757557
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Was the merger issue waived?

Text: 38 Wells argues that he did not waive the merger issue, but rather forfeited it by failing to make a timely assertion of the merger issue at trial. Hence, Wells contends that we may perform plain error review upon the merger issue. We agree with Wells. Under Rule 52(b), error means deviation from a legal rule unless the rule has been waived. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993). Waiver has been defined as the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right. Id. at 733, 113 S.Ct. 1770. Thus, issues not intentionally relinquished or abandoned but nevertheless not raised--that is, forfeited issues--may be reviewed for plain error. 39 At the conclusion of the proof at trial, Wells, through his legal advisor made a Rule 29 motion requesting a motion for a judgment of acquittal based upon the failure of the government to prove any of the elements that is [sic] alleged in Count One of this indictment, and also the failure of proof in connection with Counts Two and Three [the distribution and possession charges]. Tr. at 414-15. Wells made no argument addressing the alleged legal error involved in charging him with two separate offenses for a single incident. The district court denied the motion as to Counts 2 and 3 and reserved judgment as to Count One. Id. In addition, after the jury handed down its verdict of guilty on all three counts, the district court advised Wells that he could renew his Rule 29 motions made prior to the verdict, however, he failed to do so. See Tr. at 520. There is no evidence that Wells intentionally chose not to raise the merger issue for strategic reasons or knowingly and intelligently failed to raise the issue. 40 We find, therefore, that Wells's failure to make the timely assertion of the merger issue at trial amounted to a forfeiture, rather than a waiver. Olano, 507 U.S. at 733, 113 S.Ct. 1770 (quotation marks and citation omitted). As a result, we may review the district court's failure to merge Wells's distribution and possession charges for plain error, pursuant to Rule 52(b). Id. 3