426 F. App'x 260
5th Cir.2011Background
- Lopez, Sr. was convicted of conspiracy to commit kidnapping (count 1) and aiding and abetting the use of interstate facilities in the murder-for-hire of Blanca Lopez (count 3).
- He received a life sentence and five years of supervised release on count 1, and 120 months with three years of supervised release on count 3, to run concurrently.
- Lopez, proceeding pro se, challenged the initial appearance not having counsel, arguing Sixth Amendment violations and lack of jurisdiction due to improper waiver of counsel.
- The court held the initial appearance was not a critical stage requiring counsel, and Lopez knowingly and voluntarily waived counsel in later proceedings.
- Lopez challenged his right to self-representation due to standby counsel intrusion and a government continuance approved without his consent; the record did not support his claim.
- He asserted speedy-trial violations, but delays were either excludable or attributable to ends-of-justice rulings, with no reversible error found.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Lopez's initial appearance a critical stage requiring counsel? | Lopez | Lopez | No reversible issue; no right to counsel at that stage; waiver later valid. |
| Did standby counsel intrusion violate Lopez's right to represent himself and affect proceedings? | Lopez | Lopez | Record does not support infringement; proceedings proper. |
| Did the district court err under the Speedy Trial Act regarding delays? | Lopez | Lopez | No; delays excludable or ends-of-justice based; no ACT violation. |
| Were the challenged evidentiary issues (hearsay, wiretaps, Brady, perjury) reversible errors? | Lopez | Lopez | Failures to brief/insufficient record; issues abandoned or lacked merit. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rothgery v. Gillespie County, Tex., 554 U.S. 191 (2008) (initial appearance not always a critical stage)
- Cano, United States v., 519 F.3d 512 (5th Cir. 2008) (valid waiver of counsel controls jurisdiction)
- Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (1938) (waiver of counsel must be knowing and intelligent)
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (right to self-representation; defenses of standby counsel)
- Bermea, United States v., 30 F.3d 1539 (5th Cir. 1994) (Speedy Trial Act delays and ends-of-justice determinations)
- McNealy, United States v., 625 F.3d 858 (5th Cir. 2010) (application of Speedy Trial Act; review for plain error)
- Diecidue, United States v., 603 F.2d 535 (5th Cir. 1979) (limitations on exclusion of evidence under invocation of Fifth Amendment)
- Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) (impeachment information; knowledge of false testimony)
- Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959) (falsity and materiality of evidence; due process)
- United States v. Moore, 452 F.3d 382 (5th Cir. 2006) ( Brady material; standard for discovery obligations)
- United States v. Strouse, 286 F.3d 767 (5th Cir. 2002) (perjury or perjured testimony; standard of review)
- Ogba, United States v., 526 F.3d 214 (5th Cir. 2008) (Double Jeopardy; separate/offense analysis)
- McCall, United States v., 553 F.3d 821 (5th Cir. 2008) (plain-error review for mistrial or prejudice)
- United States v. Moore, 452 F.3d 382 (5th Cir. 2006) ( Brady material; disclosure standards)