United States v. Doggins
633 F.3d 379
| 5th Cir. | 2011Background
- On July 30, 2007, a confidential informant bought two rocks of cocaine from Doggins in a videotaped transaction for $20 each.
- Police later obtained a search warrant for Doggins's house after confirming the drugs; August 17 search recovered 60.63 g crack and 14.65 g powder cocaine, with initial report showing different totals.
- Doggins was charged with distributing and possessing with intent to distribute cocaine base; he moved to suppress the seized drugs in February 2008.
- The district court denied suppression, applying the good-faith exception; Doggins moved to reopen for testimony, which the court denied after hearing.
- Doggins was convicted after a three-day trial and sentenced to the twenty-year mandatory minimum under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A).
- He appeals, arguing suppression error, evidentiary issues, trial/ineffective assistance of counsel, and retroactivity of the Fair Sentencing Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the suppression hearing should have been reopened to hear Doggins testify | Doggins argues the court abused its discretion since Benson refused to let him testify. | Doggins claims he asked to testify via letters; reopening was required for full inquiry. | District court did not abuse discretion; letters lacking credibility and Doggins present did not require reopening. |
| Whether Benson provided ineffective assistance at the suppression hearing | Doggins contends Benson should have let him testify and pursued a Franks hearing. | No request to testify; Franks hearing unwarranted for minor inconsistency in affidavits. | No ineffective assistance; Benson reasonably declined to pursue frivolous or unnecessary strategies. |
| Whether the suppression denial was proper under good-faith reliance on a warrant | Doggins challenges probable cause and bad-faith considerations. | Officers acted in good faith reliance on the warrant; suppression proper only if not in good faith. | Good-faith reliance supported; suppression affirmed not required. |
| Whether the evidence at trial supported the drug-distribution and quantities found | Challenge to chain of custody and witness credibility; potential gaps in custody. | Video evidence corroborates two July 30 purchases; any gaps go to weight, not admissibility. | Evidence viewed in light most favorable to verdict; sufficient to find possession of >50 g crack cocaine. |
| Whether the Fair Sentencing Act retroactively affects Doggins's sentence | FSA changes threshold to 280 g; argues for resentencing under new statute. | Savings Statute 1 U.S.C. § 109; FSA not retroactive absent express statement; remedial changes in sentencing. | FSA does not apply retroactively; savings statute bars resentencing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hassan, United States v., 83 F.3d 693 (5th Cir. 1996) (abuse of discretion standard for reopening suppression)
- Pena-Rodriguez, United States v., 110 F.3d 1120 (5th Cir. 1997) (good-faith reliance on warrants; suppression framework)
- Moreno v. Dretke, 450 F.3d 158 (5th Cir. 2006) (Franks v. Delaware standard for falsity in affidavits)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (franks hearing to challenge warrant affidavits)
- Ellis, United States v., 547 F.2d 863 (5th Cir. 1977) (chain of custody; weight concerns for jury)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (sufficiency of evidence standard)
- Mann, United States v., 493 F.3d 484 (5th Cir. 2007) (evidence weighing on credibility and sufficiency)
- Gomez-Herrera, United States v., 523 F.3d 554 (5th Cir. 2008) (Savings Statute and retroactivity considerations)