US v. Debra P. Wilson
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:17-cr-00124-HCM-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . [17-4708]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
DEBRA P. WILSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:17-cr-00124-HCM-1)
Submitted: April 3, 2018
Decided: April 11, 2018
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and KEENAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jason A. Dunn, JASON A. DUNN, PLC, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellant. James
Tomilson Cole, Special Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
Following a bench trial, a magistrate judge convicted Debra P. Wilson of being
intoxicated in a public place, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 7, 13 (2012), and assimilating
Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-388 (2014). The magistrate judge placed Wilson on six months’
probation with certain conditions and ordered her to pay a $250 fine and a $5 special
assessment. Wilson appealed to the district court, and the district court affirmed the
criminal judgment. Wilson now appeals the district court’s order. * We affirm.
On appeal, Wilson challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. Although Wilson
moved for judgment of acquittal pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 on several counts, she did
not so move regarding the instant count and instead raised the relevant issue for the first
time in her appeal to the district court. Accordingly, we conclude that she forfeited her
challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting her misdemeanor conviction. See
United States v. Chong Lam, 677 F.3d 190, 200 (4th Cir. 2012) (“When a defendant raises
specific grounds in a Rule 29 motion, grounds that are not specifically raised are waived
Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967). Before conducting our own independent review pursuant to Anders, 386 U.S. at
744, we first must determine whether the “prophylactic framework” established by Anders
applies to Wilson’s case. See Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987) (stating
that Anders “is relevant when, and only when, a litigant has a previously established
constitutional right to counsel”). “[A]n indigent defendant must be offered counsel in any
misdemeanor case that actually leads to imprisonment.” Alabama v. Shelton, 535 U.S. 654,
661 (2002) (internal quotation marks omitted); see id. at 657. Because Wilson was not
sentenced to any term of imprisonment, she does not have a constitutional right to counsel.
See id. at 661. Accordingly, we need not conduct an independent review pursuant to
Anders. Notwithstanding this circumstance, we consider Appellate counsel’s argument—
which mirrors Wilson’s own argument—regarding the sufficiency of the evidence.
Pg: 3 of 3
on appeal.”). “To the extent that an exception to this rule exists in situations in which a
manifest miscarriage of justice has occurred, this is not such a case.” Id. n.10 (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Bursey, 416 F.3d 301, 305 (4th
Cir. 2005) (stating standard of review for appellate review of bench trial before magistrate).
Our review of the record reveals ample evidence supporting Wilson’s conviction. See Va.
Code Ann. § 18.2-388 (2014) (defining offense); Va. Code Ann. § 4.1-100 (2016) (defining
“intoxicated”); United States v. Barefoot, 754 F.3d 226, 233 (4th Cir. 2014) (providing
standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence). Insofar as Wilson contends that the
magistrate judge should have believed her version of events, the magistrate judge found
her testimony not credible, and we will not upset that finding on appeal. See United States
v. Roe, 606 F.3d 180, 186 (4th Cir. 2010).
Accordingly, we affirm the criminal judgment. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?