United States v. Kristopher Owen Daniels
710 F. App'x 577
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Kristopher Owen Daniels was convicted by a jury of: possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine and marijuana (21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)), using/carrying a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)), and two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g), 924). Convictions arose from events on May 31, 2014.
- Police responded to a 911 call reporting Daniels threatening with a gun; Daniels fled on foot, reportedly threw objects over a fence, and was taken into custody.
- Officers recovered, from bushes near where Daniels fled, a plastic bag with ~23.094 grams of crack cocaine and a loaded .380 handgun; Daniels surrendered a bag with ~5.32 grams of marijuana before being searched and had $2,100 on his person.
- A search of Daniels’ bedroom (by warrant) produced another firearm, ammunition, marijuana seeds, and items tying him to the bedroom; the crack quantity and cash supported an inference of intent to distribute.
- District court sentenced Daniels to concurrent 92-month terms on Counts 1, 3, and 4, and a consecutive 60-month term on Count 2 (total 152 months). Daniels appealed raising (1) ineffective assistance for not pursuing an insanity defense, (2) suppression of phone evidence for lack of voluntary consent, (3) sufficiency of evidence on Counts 1 and 2, and (4) substantive unreasonableness of sentence related to his mental capacity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance for not pursuing insanity defense | Daniels: counsel was ineffective for failing to pursue an insanity defense given his mental impairments and low IQ | Government: record does not conclusively show ineffectiveness; issue should be developed in § 2255 | Affirmed — claim not addressed on direct appeal; no conclusive record evidence of ineffective assistance; raise in § 2255 if at all |
| Suppression: consent to search phone | Daniels: mental impairments prevented knowing, voluntary consent to phone search | Government: no factual showing that consent was involuntary; district court rightly denied suppression | Affirmed — Daniels failed to show plain error; no facts marshaled to show lack of voluntary consent |
| Sufficiency of evidence for drug distribution (Count 1) | Daniels: evidence insufficient to prove possession with intent to distribute | Government: crack quantity, throwing behavior, split baggies, marijuana packaging, and $2,100 support intent to distribute | Affirmed — viewing evidence favorably to Government, substantial evidence supports conviction |
| Sufficiency of evidence for § 924(c) (Count 2) | Daniels: either no underlying drug trafficking or firearm not possessed in furtherance of drug trafficking | Government: gun was loaded, in close proximity to drugs and cash, accessible after he discarded items; Lomax factors support inference | Affirmed — jury could infer firearm furthered drug crime; evidence legally sufficient |
| Substantive reasonableness of sentence | Daniels: district court failed to sufficiently account for limited intellectual function and mental capacity | Government: sentence was within Guidelines and court considered § 3553(a) factors including danger to public and history | Affirmed — bottom-of-Guidelines sentence presumed reasonable; Daniels did not rebut presumption |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Faulls, 821 F.3d 502 (4th Cir. 2016) (ineffective-assistance claims not addressed on direct appeal absent conclusive record evidence)
- United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114 (4th Cir. 1991) (counsel should be given opportunity to explain omissions before addressing ineffectiveness)
- United States v. Claridy, 601 F.3d 276 (4th Cir. 2010) (preservation and plain-error review for suppression issues not raised below)
- United States v. Zayyad, 741 F.3d 452 (4th Cir. 2014) (standard of review for Rule 29 motions: de novo; affirm if evidence viewed favorably to government is substantial)
- United States v. Hall, 551 F.3d 257 (4th Cir. 2009) (elements of possession with intent to distribute)
- United States v. Collins, 412 F.3d 515 (4th Cir. 2005) (factors supporting intent to distribute: quantity, packaging, hiding place, and cash)
- United States v. Lomax, 293 F.3d 701 (4th Cir. 2002) (Lomax factors for determining whether firearm was possessed in furtherance of drug trafficking)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standard for reviewing substantive reasonableness of sentences)