United States v. Marrero
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 13660
| 6th Cir. | 2011Background
- Marrero, indicted Nov. 7, 2007, on possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine and marijuana; he pled guilty to crack charge under a plea agreement, marijuana charge dismissed.
- District court allowed him to withdraw the guilty plea but refused substitute counsel; Marrero chose to represent himself with standby counsel.
- Trial occurred May 28–29, 2008; police recovered drugs, Marrero admitted to owning them and to intent to distribute.
- Post-plea PSR led to objections at sentencing; district court sentenced Marrero to 360 months under career-offender provisions.
- Marrero appealed challenging Sixth Amendment confrontation, suppression rulings, evidentiary rulings, sufficiency, Rule 32 procedures, and application of crack/powder disparity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sixth Amendment right to counsel | Marrero claims denial of substitute counsel violated rights | Marrero asserts coercive self-representation forced by court | No abuse of discretion; waiver and self-representation upheld |
| Motion to suppress evidence | Suppression warranted due to unlawful arrest/search | Arrest and searches supported by probable cause and warrants | Probable cause and warrant exceptions supported searches; denial affirmed |
| Testimony about struggle with police | Evidence of arrest struggle constitutes improper 404(b) evidence | Evidence intrinsic to charged offense | Admission not error; intrinsic to case; not prejudicial |
| Rule 32(e)(2) violation | Failure to provide 35-day PSR review prejudiced defense | Harmless error given timing and prior PSR | Harmless error; no remand required |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Iles, 906 F.2d 1122 (6th Cir.1990) (substitution of counsel requires good cause)
- United States v. Jennings, 83 F.3d 145 (6th Cir.1996) (factors for abuse of discretion in counsel-denial decisions)
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1975) (right to self-representation requires knowing waiver)
- United States v. Mooneyham, 473 F.3d 280 (6th Cir.2007) (abuse-of-discretion standard for substitute-counsel decisions)
- United States v. Vasquez, 560 F.3d 461 (6th Cir.2009) (adequacy of inquiry into attorney-client conflict)
- United States v. Saldivar-Trujillo, 380 F.3d 274 (6th Cir.2004) (adequate inquiry into complaints in sentencing contexts)
- United States v. Michael, 576 F.3d 323 (6th Cir.2009) (Kimbrough-Spears framework applies to discretionary sentencing)