22-4205
4th Cir.Apr 24, 2023Background:
- Davante Harrison was tried and convicted by a jury of: conspiracy to distribute controlled substances (21 U.S.C. § 846), possession with intent to distribute heroin (21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)), being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)).
- Police searched a rental vehicle Harrison was driving and seized large quantities of drugs, firearms, and drug-trafficking paraphernalia; Harrison moved to suppress that evidence, arguing the search lacked voluntary consent.
- The district court held an evidentiary hearing, credited law enforcement testimony that Harrison consented to the search, and denied the suppression motion.
- At sentencing the court imposed the statutory mandatory minimum of 180 months’ imprisonment (requested by both parties), after calculating the Guidelines range and addressing the § 3553(a) factors.
- On appeal, counsel filed an Anders brief raising three possible issues (suppression, sentencing procedure, sufficiency of the evidence); Harrison did not file a pro se brief and the Government did not file a respondent’s brief.
- The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record, found no reversible error as to suppression, sentencing, or sufficiency, conducted the required Anders review, and affirmed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Harrison voluntarily consented to search of the rental vehicle (motion to suppress) | Gov’t: officers’ testimony credible; consent was voluntary | Harrison: he did not validly consent; search violated Fourth Amendment | Court: trial judge’s factual finding of voluntary consent not clearly erroneous; suppression denial affirmed |
| Whether the 180‑month sentence was procedurally erroneous | Gov’t: district court correctly calculated Guidelines, considered § 3553(a), and explained sentence | Harrison: alleged procedural sentencing errors (calculation, factoring, explanation) | Court: no procedural error; sentence reasonable and affirmed |
| Whether evidence was sufficient to support convictions on all counts | Gov’t: extensive testimony plus drugs, firearms, and paraphernalia tied to Harrison and conspiracy | Harrison: argued evidence insufficient to prove elements beyond reasonable doubt | Court: viewing evidence in favor of Gov’t, substantial evidence supported all convictions |
| Adequacy of appellate review under Anders | Gov’t: not advocating but court should review record for non-frivolous issues | Harrison (via counsel): counsel filed Anders brief asserting no meritorious issues | Court: performed full Anders review, found no meritorious issues, advised Harrison of cert. rights, affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedure when appellate counsel seeks to withdraw claiming appeal is frivolous)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (standards for reviewing reasonableness of sentences)
- United States v. Small, 944 F.3d 490 (4th Cir. 2019) (standard of review for denial of suppression: legal de novo, factual clear error)
- United States v. Azua-Rinconada, 914 F.3d 319 (4th Cir. 2019) (consent exception to Fourth Amendment warrant requirement)
- United States v. Torres-Reyes, 952 F.3d 147 (4th Cir. 2020) (deferential abuse-of-discretion standard for sentence review)
- United States v. Fowler, 948 F.3d 663 (4th Cir. 2020) (procedural-sentencing-error framework from Gall)
- United States v. Pena, 952 F.3d 503 (4th Cir. 2020) (standard for reviewing Guidelines calculations)
- United States v. Savage, 885 F.3d 212 (4th Cir. 2018) (clear error standard explained)
- United States v. Kelly, 510 F.3d 433 (4th Cir. 2007) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)