United States v. Antonio Ortiz, III
670 F. App'x 214
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Ortiz was convicted by a jury of being a felon in possession of a firearm after police seized a gun from his girlfriend’s apartment at his arrest.
- Ortiz filed a pretrial suppression motion but did not timely challenge the validity of the arrest warrant until a supplemental motion for a new trial.
- Evidence at trial included Ortiz’s clothing and personal items in the bedroom where the firearm was found; the gun was in plain view.
- Defense argued (post-trial) that the arrest warrant lacked a sworn complaint establishing probable cause and that the Government failed to prove Ortiz constructively possessed the firearm.
- District court denied Ortiz’s motions for suppression and for judgment of acquittal or a new trial; Ortiz appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of arrest warrant / suppression | Ortiz: warrant unsupported by sworn complaint; evidence should be suppressed | Gov: suppression claim waived for failure to timely raise; warrant valid | Court: claim waived; reviewed for plain error and found no plain error because factual question unresolved at suppression stage |
| Sufficiency of possession evidence | Ortiz: Government failed to prove constructive possession | Gov: Ortiz’s belongings in the bedroom and plain view of the gun support knowledge and access; possession may be joint | Court: Evidence sufficient to support conviction for possession |
| Motion for judgment of acquittal / new trial (original motion) | Ortiz: insufficient evidence of possession | Gov: evidence supports possession | Court: district court did not abuse discretion in denying acquittal/new trial |
| Supplemental motion raising warrant validity | Ortiz: renewed challenge to warrant validity | Gov: untimely; waived; no plain error shown | Court: supplemental claim fails for same reasons; denial proper |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Scroggins, 599 F.3d 433 (5th Cir. 2010) (failure to raise suppression issues pretrial waives them on appeal)
- United States v. Chung, 261 F.3d 536 (5th Cir. 2001) (probable-cause/factual questions resolvable at suppression hearings)
- United States v. Ybarra, 70 F.3d 362 (5th Cir. 1995) (personal effects in area support inference of residence/use)
- United States v. Onick, 889 F.2d 1425 (5th Cir. 1989) (presence of personal items can show living at location)
- United States v. Meza, 701 F.3d 411 (5th Cir. 2012) (plain view supports inference of knowledge and access)
- United States v. McKnight, 953 F.2d 898 (5th Cir. 1992) (possession may be joint among occupants)
- United States v. Franklin, 561 F.3d 398 (5th Cir. 2009) (standard for district court’s denial of acquittal/new trial motion)