United States v. Shondolyn Blevins
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 11138
5th Cir.2014Background
- Blevins was convicted by jury on three counts: cocaine possession with intent to distribute, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, and being a felon in possession of a firearm.
- The case began with five controlled crack purchases conducted by a CI under supervision, leading to an arrest warrant after a second purchase.
- A search of Blevins’ trailer yielded crack cocaine, a firearm, and other drug paraphernalia; a consent-to-search was obtained but contested.
- Blevins moved to suppress multiple times; the district court denied suppression and later dismissed the first indictment for a Speedy Trial Act issue.
- A second indictment was filed and later resulted in a jury verdict; sentencing issues included whether notice under 21 U.S.C. § 851(a) was properly given and whether the second indictment was proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal of the second indictment with prejudice was appropriate under the Speedy Trial Act | Blevins argues overcrowding and delay warrant dismissal with prejudice | Government argues delay was neutral and dismissal without prejudice was proper | No; district court did not abuse discretion; dismissal without prejudice affirmed |
| Whether Count Two is duplicitous or fails to state an offense | Count Two is duplicitous or inadequately charged under § 924(c) | Caption and text cure any ambiguity; no error in charging | Count Two sufficiently charged; no plain error |
| Whether the Government properly complied with 21 U.S.C. § 851(a) notice | Blevins was not properly served with a second § 851(a) notice | Notice from the first indictment sufficed; second notice unnecessary | Factual issue remanded to determine if proper service occurred; enhancement reconsidered if properly noticed |
| Whether suppression rulings, including consent and Miranda issues, were proper | Consent was involuntary; pre-classic Miranda issues tainted statements | Consent voluntary; Miranda warnings eventually given; no coercion shown | Suppression rulings affirmed; statements at field office admissible; search and arrest warrant based on good faith |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Blank, 701 F.3d 1084 (5th Cir. 2012) (factors for Speedy Trial Act dismissal with/without prejudice)
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S. 1972) (delay on docket weighs in prejudice analysis)
- United States v. Mayfield, 418 F.3d 1017 (9th Cir. 2005) (information sufficiency in successive prosecutions)
- United States v. Williams, 59 F.3d 1180 (11th Cir. 1995) (information sufficient where superseding indictment involved)
- United States v. Kamerud, 326 F.3d 1008 (8th Cir. 2003) (information filing sufficiency in sentencing after superseding indictment)
- Arnold v. United States, 467 F.3d 880 (5th Cir. 2006) (notice purpose and defendant’s knowledge regarding § 851(a))
- United States v. Cooper, 714 F.3d 873 (5th Cir. 2013) (indictment clarity cures ambiguity in § 924(c) charges)
- Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (U.S. 2004) (Seibert doctrine on interrogation without proper warnings)