United States v. Ricky Walter Denton
535 F. App'x 832
11th Cir.2013Background
- Defendant Ricky Walter Denton, proceeding pro se with standby counsel, was convicted by a jury of armed bank robbery (18 U.S.C. § 2113) and brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)).
- While jailed pretrial with limited law-library access, Denton was allowed escorted courthouse visits for two weeks and thereafter could request specific materials; he alleges the court unreasonably restricted his access in violation of Faretta.
- Law enforcement executed searches of Denton’s hotel room and apartment after written consent; one apartment search two months later relied on the tenant Hollie Todd’s consent and produced trial evidence.
- Denton claims the government violated the Jencks Act by not timely producing FBI Special Agent Stokes’ grand jury testimony and that those transcripts contained impeachment material.
- The government’s case included eyewitness identifications, testimony from an accomplice and jailhouse cooperators, physical evidence (clothing, gun matching surveillance), and confessions to other inmates; Denton challenged sufficiency and sought a subpoena for an unnamed correctional officer to impeach a jail witness.
- Denton also has a pending motion for a new trial in district court based on post-judgment interrogatory responses from prosecution witnesses alleging misconduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right to self-representation: access to law library/materials | Denton: Faretta entitles pro se defendant to reasonable, de minimis access to legal materials; court’s restrictions were unjustified | Government/District Court: Denton was warned, offered counsel, given escorted access and specific-material requests; no categorical denial | Denied — no Sixth Amendment violation; prior panel precedent (Edwards) controls; access provided was adequate |
| Suppression: voluntariness of consent to searches | Denton: consent involuntary due to intoxication and multiple officers present | Govt: Warrantless searches justified by voluntary consent; later apartment search lawful by co-tenant’s consent (Todd); hotel search valid by occupant Wimberly’s consent | Denied — district court’s factual findings upheld; evidence from later apartment search admissible based on Todd’s consent; hotel search valid via co-occupant consent |
| Jencks Act disclosure of grand jury testimony | Denton: government failed to produce Agent Stokes’ grand jury transcript timely, depriving impeachment material | Govt: Jencks Act protections limit production until witness testifies; Stokes was a defense witness at trial and any relevant statements to suppression hearing would have been producible then; transcripts cited lacked impeachment value | Denied — no Jencks Act violation; Stokes was not a government witness at trial and highlighted grand jury portions did not contradict trial testimony |
| Sufficiency of evidence / subpoena for rebuttal witness | Denton: eyewitness inconsistencies and lack of direct physical link undermine conviction; denial of subpoena for unnamed correctional officer deprived him of impeachment evidence | Govt: ample evidence (identifications, accomplice testimony, jailhouse confessions, traced bait bills); subpoena noncompliant with Rule 17(b) and untimely/unnamed | Denied — evidence sufficient as a matter of law; subpoena denial not an abuse of discretion and any error was harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (pro se right and its limits)
- Kane v. Garcia Espita, 546 U.S. 9 (Faretta does not clearly establish right to state-provided legal aid)
- Edwards v. United States, 795 F.2d 958 (11th Cir.) (no constitutional right to library access where counsel is offered)
- United States v. Harris, 526 F.3d 1334 (11th Cir.) (third-party consent to search)
- United States v. Prieto, 505 F.2d 8 (5th Cir.) (purpose of Jencks Act is impeachment)
- United States v. Delgado, 56 F.3d 1357 (11th Cir.) (Jencks Act statements limited to impeachment)
- United States v. White, 663 F.3d 1207 (11th Cir.) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- United States v. Broughton, 689 F.3d 1260 (11th Cir.) (jury inference and sufficiency review)
- United States v. Peters, 403 F.3d 1263 (11th Cir.) (deference to jury credibility determinations)