United States v. Marcus Belton
694 F. App'x 576
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Marcus Belton was convicted of: being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)); possession with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base within 1,000 feet of an elementary school; and using a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)).
- Throughout proceedings Belton rejected multiple appointed attorneys, sometimes represented himself, and the district court characterized some of his conduct as dilatory.
- Belton requested continuances at various points; the district court denied those requests and relied on the record showing lack of diligence and delaying tactics.
- The court admitted evidence of Belton’s prior felony convictions (some in sanitized form) to prove issues including intent and knowledge and because Belton would not stipulate to felon status under § 922(g)(1).
- Belton challenged (a) the denial of continuances, (b) a district-court ruling that any testimony by him would require Q&A format, (c) admission of prior convictions, and (d) denial of a motion to dismiss the superseding indictment for prosecutorial vindictiveness.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed on all four challenges, finding no abuse of discretion, forfeiture where appropriate, and no evidence or presumption of prosecutorial vindictiveness.
Issues
| Issue | Belton's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of continuances | Court abused discretion; need more time to prepare | Belton caused delays by rejecting counsel and acting dilatory; standby counsel had time | Affirmed—no abuse; district court properly considered lack of diligence and delaying tactics |
| Ruling on testimonial form (Q&A requirement) | Ruling improper; would affect decision to testify | Belton never actually testified or committed to testify; no preserved error | Forfeited—no preserved challenge because Belton did not take the stand |
| Admission of prior felonies | Prior convictions were unfairly prejudicial | At least one conviction admissible for intent/knowledge; others sanitized because no stipulation to felon status; limiting instruction mitigated prejudice | No plain error or abuse; admission proper and any error harmless |
| Motion to dismiss superseding indictment for vindictiveness | Prosecutor acted vindictively by superseding indictment | No direct evidence of improper motive and no circumstances triggering presumption of vindictiveness | Denial affirmed—no prosecutorial vindictiveness shown or presumed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Flynt, 756 F.2d 1352 (9th Cir. 1985) (continuance denial review and defendant diligence)
- United States v. Kloehn, 620 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2010) (duty of defendant to be diligent in preparing defense)
- United States v. Flewitt, 874 F.2d 669 (9th Cir. 1989) (standby counsel preparation and continuance relevance)
- United States v. Johnson, 903 F.2d 1219 (9th Cir. 1990) (forfeiture of claim about testimony procedures)
- Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38 (1984) (speculation about whether defendant would testify does not preserve error)
- United States v. Loftis, 843 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. 2016) (standards for admitting prior convictions)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (harmless/plain error framework)
- United States v. Holler, 411 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2005) (404(b) use for intent/knowledge)
- United States v. Larson, 495 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc) (overruling aspects of prior precedent)
- United States v. Hankey, 203 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 2000) (Rule 403 unfair prejudice analysis)
- United States v. Weiland, 420 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2005) (admission of criminal history when defendant refuses to stipulate)
- United States v. Lloyd, 807 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2015) (limiting instructions mitigate prejudice)
- United States v. Kent, 649 F.3d 906 (9th Cir. 2011) (standard of review for prosecutorial vindictiveness claims)
- United States v. Jenkins, 504 F.3d 694 (9th Cir. 2007) (direct evidence required to prove improper prosecutorial motive)
- United States v. Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368 (1982) (no presumption of prosecutorial vindictiveness in pretrial context)