Beachum v. United States, 19 A.3d 311

Beachum and Copeland were arrested for loud music at 5107 Fitch Street in the early hours of August 26, 2009, where an extended handgun clip was observed protruding from a tan duffle bag in a Jeep; a firearm was recovered later.
Beachum faced multiple charges including unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon, possession of an unregistered firearm, unlawful possession of ammunition, and other offenses; he moved to sever Copeland's co-defendant and to suppress evidence and statements.
At a suppression hearing, Beachum sought to introduce Copeland’s out-of-court statement that the Jeep and its contents belonged to her; the court indicated severance would not be granted if Copeland Would not testify and continued to later trial date.
The government dismissed several charges against Beachum on November 30, 2009; the suppression motion began with Beachum's standing to challenge the Jeep search, which the court allowed, and the gun was found in plain view during the search.
Officer O'Donnell testified the handgun was in plain view and observed through the Jeep’s open window; the court credited this testimony and denied the suppression motion, after which Beachum pled guilty conditionally to the remaining firearm and ammunition offenses.
Beachum was sentenced to concurrent terms totaling 24, 12, and 12 months for the three remaining offenses.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Preservation of pretrial rulings via Rule 11(a)(2).	Beachum's written reservation covered ‘the motion’ (unspecified), intended to preserve suppression.	Reservation did not clearly specify which motion; severance and other motions were not preserved.	Suppression motion properly preserved; severance not reviewed.
Whether suppression was properly denied based on probable cause/plain view.	No probable cause; handgun seen in Jeep does not establish a weapon offense.	Plain view and probable cause supported seizure; officer lawfully in position to view the weapon.	Suppression denied; plain view observation supported probable cause and lawful seizure.
Whether trial court abused discretion by denying an overnight continuance for a defense witness.	Additional witness (Vikki) could testify and would affect suppression issue.	Proffer insufficient; no guaranteed attendance or testimony; failure to meet minimum requirements.	No abuse; denial affirmed.
Merits of severance denial.	Severance needed to call Copeland as a witness in Beachum's defense.	Copeland unwilling to testify; severance not appropriate absent testimony.	Court declined to consider severance on appeal; suppression issues preserved remain controlling.

Casey v. United States, 788 A.2d 155 (D.C.2002) (written reservation not required when parties clearly intended appeal of suppression ruling)
Demus v. United States, 710 A.2d 858 (D.C.1998) (purpose of Rule 11(a)(2) reservation to document appeal scope)
In re Peak, 759 A.2d 612 (D.C.2000) (conditional plea preserves specified pretrial issues when parties assent)
Yasak, 884 F.2d 996 (7th Cir.1989) (federal rule 11(a)(2) purposes fulfilled despite lack of written reservation)
O'Connor v. United States, 399 A.2d 21 (D.C.1979) (continuance standards for obtaining witnesses at suppression hearing)
Daley v. United States, 739 A.2d 814 (D.C.1999) (continuance denial reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Umanzor v. United States, 803 A.2d 983 (D.C.2002) (plain view and admissibility when officer properly observes contraband)
Johnson v. United States, 7 A.3d 1030 (D.C.2010) (sight of a handgun supports probable cause to regard it as contraband)