US v. Willie Mitchell

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:10-cr-00562-DCN-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999064954].. [12-4138]

Appeal: 12-4138

Doc: 52

Filed: 03/15/2013

Pg: 1 of 8

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4138

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIE MITCHELL,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(2:10-cr-00562-DCN-1)

Submitted:

November 1, 2012

Decided:

March 15, 2013

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Francis J. Cornely, CORNELY LAW FIRM, Charleston, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Robert Nicholas Bianchi, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED
STATES
ATTORNEY,
Charleston,
South
Carolina,
for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-4138

Doc: 52

Filed: 03/15/2013

Pg: 2 of 8

PER CURIAM:
Willie
indictment with:
18

U.S.C.

§

Mitchell

was

charged

in

a

three-count

(1) being a felon in possession of a firearm,

922(g)(1)

(2006)

(Count

1);

(2)

possession

with

intent to distribute crack cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (2006)
(Count 2); and (3) possession of a firearm in furtherance of a
drug trafficking offense, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) (2006) (Count
3).

Mitchell filed motions to suppress both his statements and

evidence seized at the time of his arrest.
hearings,

the

district

court

denied

both

Following separate
motions.

Mitchell

subsequently entered into a plea agreement with the Government
in which he agreed to plead guilty to Counts 1 and 2.

Mitchell

also agreed that the plea agreement constituted an Information
for purposes of 21 U.S.C. § 851 (2006), thereby subjecting him
to

increased

punishment

offenses

identified

sentenced

Mitchell

in
to

based
the

a

on

three

agreement.

total

of

188

prior
The
months

felony

district

drug
court

imprisonment.

Mitchell noted a timely appeal.
Mitchell’s attorney has filed a brief in accordance
with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he
asserts that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but
questions the district court’s rulings on Mitchell’s suppression
motions.

Mitchell has filed a supplemental pro se brief in

which he also challenges the denial of his suppression motions.
2

Appeal: 12-4138

Doc: 52

Filed: 03/15/2013

Pg: 3 of 8

Although the plea agreement makes no mention of the suppression
motions, we find that Mitchell arguably preserved those issues
for appeal.
The facts underlying Mitchell’s arrest and indictment
are

as

follows.

In

December

2009,

North

Charleston

Police

narcotics detectives received a tip that illegal drug activity
was taking place at 2321 Kent Avenue; based on the tip, the
detectives
outside

conducted

the

positive

a

search

residence

for

cocaine

and
and

of

found

the

trash

several

marijuana.

A

can

items
search

at

the

that

curb

tested

warrant

was

obtained based on that evidence.
When
Mitchell,

the

Kenyatta

warrant
Thompson,

residence.

Detectives

quantity

both

of

was

also

cocaine

and

and

executed,
five

recovered
crack,

a

detectives

found

juveniles

inside

a

handgun,

stolen

digital

scale,

the
a

pyrex

dishes containing cocaine residue, a microwave oven containing
cocaine

residue,

Mitchell’s name.

a

large

sum

of

cash,

and

documents

bearing

After being advised of his Miranda rights,

Mitchell signed a statement admitting ownership of the drugs and
guns.
In his motion to suppress the evidence seized during
the search, Mitchell claimed that the search warrant was not
based on sufficient probable cause because the trash can was
accessible to passersby, and that the officers entered his home
3

Appeal: 12-4138

Doc: 52

Filed: 03/15/2013

Pg: 4 of 8

without a warrant in hand (the warrant arrived approximately one
hour after the detectives began the search).
At the hearing on Mitchell’s motion, Detective Jamel
Foster testified that the trash can was collected from outside
the fence surrounding the yard at 2321 Kent Avenue.

Foster

stated that there was a garage in the back yard and that there
was a separate trash can alongside that building, inside the
fence.

That trash can was not searched.

Prior to obtaining the

warrant, Foster checked the property tax records for 2321 Kent
Avenue

to

confirm

address.

Along

that
with

the

garage

did

not

the

items

that

have

tested

a

different

positive

for

marijuana and cocaine, Kenyatta Thompson’s mail was found in the
trash can that was searched.
Mitchell

argued

that

the

trash

can

pulled

by

the

detectives was located in a public place and was accessible to
people

at

a

nearby

bus

stop,

among

others.

According

to

Mitchell, that information should have been disclosed in the
application for a search warrant.
information

was

unnecessary.

However, we find that such

Mitchell’s

reliance

on

United

States v. Tate, 524 F.3d 449 (4th Cir. 2008), is misplaced.

In

Tate, the evidence suggested that the officer applying for the
search warrant intentionally omitted facts about the location of
the trash because the trash was not actually abandoned (i.e.,
placed at the curb, as in the instant case) but was located
4

Appeal: 12-4138

Doc: 52

Filed: 03/15/2013

Pg: 5 of 8

within the fenced-in backyard, near the home.
that

Tate

made

a

“substantial

preliminary

This court found
showing

that

[the

officer] knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard
for the truth, omitted a material statement in the affidavit he
offered in support of the warrant to search Tate’s residence.”
Id. at 457.

This court vacated Tate’s conviction and remanded

for a Franks * hearing.
that

the

officers

By contrast,

intentionally

or

Mitchell failed to show
recklessly

withheld

a

material fact — the proximity of a bus stop — when applying for
the warrant.
The district court also properly found that Mitchell’s
challenge to the execution of the warrant was without merit.
The Fourth Amendment does not require that a warrant be served
on the owner of the property prior to the search.
Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551, 562 n.5 (2004)
Amendment

nor

[Fed.

R.

Crim.

P.

41]

See Groh v.

(“[N]either the Fourth
requires

the

executing

officer to serve the warrant on the owner before commencing the
search”).

*

Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56 (1978) (holding
that, where “a defendant makes a substantial preliminary showing
that a false statement knowingly and intentionally, or with
reckless disregard for the truth, was included by the affiant in
the warrant affidavit, and if the allegedly false statement is
necessary to the finding of probable cause, the Fourth Amendment
requires that a hearing be held at the defendant’s request”).

5

Appeal: 12-4138

Doc: 52

Filed: 03/15/2013

Mitchell

also

Pg: 6 of 8

filed

a

motion

to

suppress

his

statements made at the time of his arrest on the ground that the
statements were not made freely and voluntarily.

Specifically,

Mitchell claimed that, at the time of the search, the officers
told him and Thompson (his girlfriend) that if he did not claim
responsibility for the drugs and gun, the Department of Social
Services

would

take

Thompson’s

children

from

her,

possibly

permanently.
A

statement

will

be

deemed

involuntary

if

the

accused’s “will has been overborne or his capacity for selfdetermination critically impaired.”

United States v. Pelton,

835 F.2d 1067, 1071 (4th Cir. 1987) (internal quotation marks
and

citation

necessary

omitted).

predicate

to

“[C]oercive
the

finding

police

that

a

activity

confession

is
is

a
not

‘voluntary’ within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment.”
(1986).

Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 167

Whether a confession is voluntary must be determined by

examining “the totality of all the surrounding circumstances —
both the characteristics of the accused and the details of the
interrogation.”
(1973).

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 226

Relevant considerations include the age, education, and

intelligence

of

the

accused,

the

length

and

conditions

detention, and the duration and frequency of questioning.

6

Id.

of

Appeal: 12-4138

Doc: 52

Filed: 03/15/2013

Mitchell
graduate,

and

was

had

a

Pg: 7 of 8

thirty-five
lengthy

years

criminal

old,

a

history

high

(his

school

criminal

history category, as determined in the presentence report, was
VI).

Although the officers present denied making any threats

to Mitchell or Thompson, even if they had, “[t]he mere existence
of threats . . . implied promises, improper influence, or other
coercive police activity . . . does not automatically render a
confession involuntary. . . . Truthful statements about [the
Defendant’s]

predicament

are

not

the

type

of

threatens to render a statement involuntary.”

presence

of

drugs,

firearms,

and

that

United States v.

Braxton, 112 F.3d 777, 780, 782 (4th Cir. 1997).
the

coercion

Indeed, given

evidence

of

drug

manufacturing in the home, Thompson could have lost custody of
her children had the activity been attributed to her.
In light of the above, we conclude that the district
court did not err in denying Mitchell’s suppression motions.

In

accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
therefore

affirm

the

district

court’s

judgment.

This

We

court

requires that counsel inform Mitchell, in writing, of his right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review.

If Mitchell requests that a petition be filed, but

counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel

may

move

in

this

court
7

at

that

time

for

leave

to

Appeal: 12-4138

Doc: 52

Filed: 03/15/2013

withdraw from representation.

Pg: 8 of 8

Counsel’s motion must state that

a copy thereof was served on Mitchell.

Finally, we dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately

presented

in

the

materials

before

the

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

8