USA v. Stokes

Filing 920070604

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 4, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 06-40816 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus FINESS EDWARD STOKES, Defendant-Appellant. -------------------Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:05-CR-55-ALL -------------------Before DeMOSS, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Finess Edward Stokes appeals his conviction for being a felon in possession of firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), and his resulting 188-month sentence. Stokes renews

his argument that the admission of evidence regarding his extrinsic acts, specifically, his possession of firearms on March 3, 2005, two weeks after the instant offense, was error under FED. R. EVID. 403 and 404(b). This court reviews rulings admitting evidence under Rule 404(b) under a heightened abuse-of-discretion standard.
*

United

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

No. 06-40816 -2States v. Buchanan, 70 F.3d 818, 831 (5th Cir. 1995). Because

Stokes pleaded not guilty and, contrary to his assertion on appeal, argued at trial that he did not knowingly possess the firearm, Stokes's intent to commit the instant offense was at issue. See United States v. Broussard, 80 F.3d 1025, 1040 (5th As the district court determined, the current

Cir. 1996).

offense and the March 3, 2005, offenses were the same and required the same intent; the evidence of Stokes's firearms possession on March 3 was thus relevant to show his knowledge that the guns were in the car he drove on February 19, a disputed issue in the case. See United States v. Fuller, 453 F.3d 274,

277 (5th Cir. 2006); United States v. Beechum, 582 F.2d 898, 913 (5th Cir. 1978) (en banc). Stokes's argument that the extrinsic-acts evidence was unnecessarily cumulative given the testimony by William Archer directly linking him to the firearms in the instant case is not well taken. As the district court found, there were credibility Moreover, any prejudice arising

issues with Archer's testimony.

from the admission of the evidence regarding Stokes's March 3 firearms possession was cured by the district court's limiting instruction. See United States v. Broussard, 80 F.3d 1025, 1040 Consequently, the district court did not abuse

(5th Cir. 1996).

its discretion in admitting the evidence. Stokes next contends, for the first time on appeal, that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to sentencing

No. 06-40816 -3enhancements assessed him in paragraphs 21 and 22 of the presentence report. Because the argument is raised exclusively

under the rubric of an ineffective-assistance claim, and because the district court record is undeveloped regarding counsel's performance, this court will not consider the claim. See United

States v. Miller, 406 F.3d 323, 335-36 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 207 (2005); see also Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 503-04 (2003). AFFIRMED.