United States v. Mike Coffelt
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 6489
| 6th Cir. | 2014Background
- In 2007 an investigation into methamphetamine "ice" led to indictments of 39 people; four defendants (Pritchett, Johnson, Rollins, Coffelt) were tried and convicted of meth conspiracy and related offenses. Jury found varying drug-quantity levels for each defendant; sentences ranged from 97 to 360 months.
- Coffelt had pleaded guilty in Tennessee in March 2006 under the state judicial diversion statute and received probation; after successful completion his charge was dismissed and expunged. The district court enhanced Coffelt’s federal sentence under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) based on that prior plea.
- Defendants raised multiple challenges on appeal: (1) whether a state diversionary plea/expunged disposition counts as a "prior conviction" under § 841, (2) whether amendment of a jury instruction on Count 2 was a constructive amendment or prejudicial variance, (3) admissibility and proper limiting instruction for an agent who testified in dual fact/expert roles, (4) sufficiency of evidence for Johnson’s conspiracy conviction and admission of informant testimony, (5) sentencing issues including reliance on judge-found facts and prior-conviction findings after Alleyne, and (6) Rollins’ motions to suppress items found in two vehicle stops.
- The district court found the state diversionary plea qualified as a prior conviction under federal law and that the plea was final for § 841 purposes.
- The district court denied suppression motions (finding inventory searches and/or inevitable discovery), found no constructive amendment/variance from the jury-instruction change, treated any failure to give a cautionary dual-role instruction as non-prejudicial, and sentenced within statutory ranges. The court affirmed all convictions and sentences on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a state judicial diversion plea/expunged disposition is a "prior conviction" under 21 U.S.C. § 841 | Coffelt: Tennessee diversion expressly provides no adjudication of guilt, so plea is not a conviction and cannot trigger § 841 enhancement | Government: federal law governs; a guilty plea followed by probation and diversion functions as a conviction for federal sentencing | Held: Counts as a prior conviction under federal law; circuits are uniform on this point and sentence enhancement was proper |
| Whether the jury instruction amendment on Count 2 (conjunctive -> disjunctive) constructively amended the indictment or caused prejudicial variance | Coffelt/Pritchett/Johnson: amended instruction improperly changed elements after trial | Government: statute permits charging conjunctively and proving disjunctively; instruction corrected to reflect disjunctive statutory alternative | Held: No constructive amendment or prejudicial variance; amendment was proper and not prejudicial |
| Whether permitting Agent Frizzell to testify as both fact witness and expert required a cautionary instruction and whether its absence was plain error | Pritchett: failure to give cautionary instruction was plain error and prejudicial | Government: trial gave standard jury instruction on opinion evidence; other expert testimony and cross-examination mitigated any risk | Held: Even if error, not plain or prejudicial under the circumstances; no reversible error |
| Whether Johnson’s conviction lacked sufficient evidence and whether certain informant testimony was improper background evidence | Johnson: evidence showed only buyer-seller or user; informant’s prior drug use with Johnson was irrelevant and prejudicial | Government: purchases, repeated exchanges, and witness testimony supported conspiracy; brief prior-use testimony was background and harmless if erroneous | Held: Evidence sufficient to sustain conspiracy conviction; informant testimony (if error) was harmless |
| Whether judge-found facts or prior-conviction findings violated Alleyne / Apprendi | Pritchett/Rollins: sentences enhanced by judge-found facts/prior-convictions post-Alleyne | Government: Almendarez-Torres permits judge findings of prior convictions; Alleyne preserved that exception | Held: Alleyne did not overrule Almendarez-Torres; prior-conviction findings remain judge-found; challenges fail |
| Whether searches of Rollins’ vehicles were unlawful and evidence should be suppressed | Rollins: searches were improper incident-to-arrest (Gant) or unreasonably prolonged stops | Government: searches were valid inventory searches; probable cause/arrest and inventory procedures justified seizures; inevitable discovery applies | Held: Magistrate’s credibility findings upheld; inventory searches and inevitable discovery rationale sustain denial of suppression |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Miller, 434 F.3d 820 (6th Cir.) (discussion of deferred-adjudication treatment in § 841 contexts)
- Dickerson v. New Banner Inst., Inc., 460 U.S. 103 (Supreme Court) (guilty plea may itself constitute a conviction)
- United States v. Cisneros, 112 F.3d 1272 (5th Cir.) (deferred disposition can qualify as prior conviction under § 841)
- United States v. Law, 528 F.3d 888 (D.C. Cir.) (expunged or dismissed conviction counts as prior conviction when not reflecting innocence)
- United States v. Norbury, 492 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir.) (same conclusion for deferred/expunged dispositions)
- United States v. LaPointe, 690 F.3d 434 (6th Cir.) (charging conjunctively/proving disjunctively is permissible)
- United States v. Lopez-Medina, 461 F.3d 724 (6th Cir.) (dual fact/expert testimony caution and plain-error framework)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (Supreme Court) (standard for sufficiency of evidence review)
- Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (Supreme Court) (prior-conviction exception for judge-found facts; discussed in Alleyne)