Court Opinion

ID: 2964584
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:27:55.313981+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:57.907900
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] 

                            United States Court of Appeals
                                For the First Circuit
                                 ____________________

          No. 96-1261

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                  QUINCY D. JOHNSON,
                                A/K/A QUINCY D. HAMEL,

                                Defendant, Appellant.
                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

                     [Hon. D. Brock Hornby, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________
                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Cyr, Circuit Judge,
                                      _____________
                            Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                    ____________________
                              and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
                                         _____________

                                 ____________________

               Theodore L. Craft, by Appointment  of the Court, and  Quincy
               _________________                                     ______
          D. Johnson, on brief pro se.
          __________
               Helen  Kazanjian,  Assistant  U.S.   Attorney,  and  Jay  P.
               ________________                                     _______
          McCloskey, United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
          _________

                                 ____________________

                                    March 18, 1997
                                 ___________________

               Per Curiam.  In this appeal from a conviction for conspiring
               __________

          to possess with intent to  distribute cocaine base and possession

          with intent to distribute, we  have both a brief from counsel  on

          appeal  and a  pro se  brief from appellant.   We  have carefully

          considered them,  as well  as the  record, and  deem this  a case

          where, regardless of the strength of defendant's arguments below,

          there  remain  no issues  worthy  of  extensive consideration  on

          appeal.   We accordingly, without rehearsing the facts, which are

          well  known  to the  parties, proceed  briefly  to deal  with the

          arguments of appellant and his counsel.

               The first challenge  is to the sufficiency  of the evidence.

          The government, inexplicably, asserts in its brief (p.  18) that,

          after the government  finally rested, the  defense did not  renew

          its  motion for judgment of acquittal.  And appellant himself (p.

          13) has made  the same assertion.  But our  reading of the record

          indicates that, after the government rested, the court said:

                    I will  treat the defendant as  having renewed his
               motion  at the close of  the entire case,  and the same
               ruling applies,  that the motion for  acquittal on each
               of  Counts One and Two are denied.  There is sufficient
               evidence to go to the jury.

          (Transcript p. 449).   It also appears that after  this statement

          there was  no  new  evidence  submitted.   The  only  evidentiary

          discussion concerned  the mechanics of redacting  a record, which

          was to be done while the jury was being instructed.

               Therefore, we review for  error, not "plain error."   But we

          find no error.

                                         -2-

               Pullum,  the major  prosecution witness,  was fair  game for

          impeachment at  trial, but  the jury  having found  his testimony

          credible,  it  satisfies the  sufficiency requirement  under both

          counts.   Moreover,  Pullum's testimony  was corroborated  by two

          other witnesses,  and  the finding  of  a substantial  amount  of

          cocaine base and paraphernalia  used in drug packaging in  places

          and equipment associated with appellant.

               A generalized  challenge was  made to interruptions  made by

          the prosecution to defendant's closing argument.  But no specific

          interruptions have been  identified by appellant.   Nor were  any

          objections made.   And  from the  government's references  to the

          interruptions in  its brief, we  see no  possible prejudice,  let

          alone plain error.

               Another  issue, again to be judged on a "plain error" basis,

          is that the court  failed to give, in haec  verba, an instruction

          to treat an accomplice's testimony "with great care and caution."

          But instructions were given, spotlighting  the vulnerabilities of

          witnesses Pullum and Motil.  There was no plain error. See United
                                                                 ___ ______

          States v. Newton, 891 F.2d 944, 949-50 (1st Cir. 1989).
          ______    ______

               Two defects  were alleged  in the  sentencing process.   The

          first,  an alleged failure to discount the weight of cocaine base

          previously  purchased, was  a matter  clearly within  the court's

          discretion.    It  committed  no clear  error  in  observing that

          different sources  were involved and that the discount applied to

          the  seized  drugs should  not  be extended  to  those previously

          purchased.   A variation of  this issue, in  which it was  argued

                                         -3-

          that only the  seized drugs  should be considered,  made for  the

          first time on appeal, is not before us.  As for the argument that

          the court improperly refused to assign a minor role to appellant,

          we see no clear error.  This was  clearly a judgment call for the

          district court, with sufficient supporting evidence.

               The  final  issue,  made  by  appellant,  pro  se,  is  that

          appellant's counsel,  both below and on  appeal, gave ineffective

          assistance.   We do not ordinarily hear ineffective assistance of

          counsel claims on  direct appeal  and have no  reason to  deviate

          from  this rule  here. None  of the  allegations relating  to the

          trial  are  before  us,  for  lack  of  a  developed  record  and

          "extraordinary  circumstances."   See  United  States   v.  Diaz-
                                            ___  ______________       _____

          Martinez, 71 F.3d 946, 953 (1st Cir. 1995). 
          ________

               As  for  appellant's  pro  se  challenge  to  his  counsel's

          effectiveness on appeal, we merely note that the only issue which

          counsel  chose  not to  brief was  that  of the  effectiveness of

          assistance at trial,  which, as  we have just  explained, is  not

          properly before us on direct appeal.

               Affirmed.
               ________

                                         -4-