United States v. Jameson ( 2007 )

UNITED STATES, Appellee
v.
Todd E. JAMESON, Lance Corporal
U.S. Marine Corps, Appellant
No. 06-0881
Crim. App. No. 200401438
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
Argued April 24, 2007
Decided June 21, 2007
RYAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ERDMANN
and STUCKY, JJ. joined. EFFRON, C.J., and BAKER, J., filed
separate opinions concurring in part and in the result.
Counsel
For Appellant: Lieutenant Brian L. Mizer, JAGC, USN (argued).
For Appellee: Major Kevin C. Harris, USMC (argued); Commander
Paul LeBlanc, JAGC, USN.
Military Judges: Jeffrey P. Colwell (arraignment) and P. H.
McConnell (trial).
THIS OPINION IS SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE FINAL PUBLICATION.
United States v. Jameson, No. 06-0881/MC
Judge RYAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
A special court-martial composed of a military judge alone
convicted Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of failure to obey
an order or regulation and drunken operation of a vehicle, in
violation of Articles 92 and 111, Uniform Code of Military
Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. §§ 892, 911 (2000). The sentence
adjudged by the court-martial and approved by the convening
authority included a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for
ninety days, forfeiture of $500.00 pay per month for a period of
four months, and a reduction to E-1. In a supplemental action,
the convening authority suspended the bad-conduct discharge
until the end of Appellant’s obligated service, at which time it
would be remitted. The United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of
Criminal Appeals affirmed the findings of guilt and approved the
sentence. United States v. Jameson, No. NMCCA 200401438 (N-M.
Ct. Crim. App. June 26, 2006) (unpublished).
On Appellant’s petition, we granted review of the following
issues:
I. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS
DISCRETION BY NOT ALLOWING DEFENSE COUNSEL
TO RAISE A MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE RESULTS OF
APPELLANT’S BLOOD TEST AFTER PLEAS HAD BEEN
ENTERED.
II. WHETHER DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR
FAILING TO INVESTIGATE THE ISSUE OF CONSENT
PRIOR TO SUBMISSION OF APPELLANT’S PLEAS AND
FOR FAILING TO FILE A TIMELY MOTION TO
2
United States v. Jameson, No. 06-0881/MC
SUPPRESS THE RESULTS OF APPELLANT’S BLOOD-
ALCOHOL TEST.
For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
I. Background
The charges in this case arise from a single-vehicle
accident involving Appellant’s truck that occurred around 5:00
a.m. on November 10, 2003. Appellant had been drinking at two
different parties from 8:30 p.m. the night before until
approximately thirty minutes before the accident.
Appellant arrived at the first party between 7:00 p.m. and
8:00 p.m. At this party, Appellant consumed beer and
Jägermeister.1 Around midnight, he went to another party, next
door to the first party, and continued to drink vodka and
Jägermeister.
Around 5:00 a.m., two Marines found Appellant and another
Marine near Appellant’s wrecked truck off Snead’s Ferry Road on
Camp Lejeune. They called 911 and attempted to aid both
Marines.
The military police investigated the accident site. After
looking at the truck, the skid marks, and indentations in the
ground, police determined that the truck had swerved to the
right, hit a speed limit sign, swerved to the left into a ditch,
and then rolled several times before landing right side up.
1
Jägermeister is a strong, 70-proof, alcoholic beverage flavored
with herbs.
3
United States v. Jameson, No. 06-0881/MC
Appellant was treated by paramedics and taken to the
hospital for continued treatment. Around 10:50 a.m. that
morning, after doctors had treated Appellant’s medical needs,
two investigators, Sgt Bowick and Cpl (now Sgt) Luther,
presented Appellant with a form requesting that he consent to a
blood draw to determine his blood alcohol content (BAC) by
chemical analysis. Sgt Bowick read the form to Appellant and
asked Appellant if he understood what had been read to him.
Appellant told Sgt Bowick that he understood. Appellant signed
the form and blood was drawn from him for the purpose of
calculating his BAC. At 11:00 a.m., more than five hours after
Appellant was found at the accident scene, Appellant’s BAC
measured .11.2
Appellant made no motions to exclude evidence before trial.
In both the opening statement and through cross-examination of
the investigators, Appellant’s counsel raised the possibility
that a third person had been driving the truck. During its case
in chief, the prosecution presented evidence regarding the
vehicle’s trajectory during the crash, Appellant’s voluntary,
2
Manual for Courts-Martial, United States pt. IV, para.
35.a.(b)(1)(A)(2005 ed.)(MCM) provides that, for purposes of an
Article 111, UCMJ, violation of the blood alcohol limit is the
lesser of the limit set by the law of the state where the
violation occurred, or the limit in the MCM. The limit in the
MCM is .10 grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood. Id.at para. 35.a.(b)(3). The BAC limit under North Carolina law is
.08. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-138.1(a)(2) (2000).
4
United States v. Jameson, No. 06-0881/MC
properly warned admissions to investigators that he had been
drinking the night of the accident, and testimony that
established that the smell of alcohol was emanating from
Appellant at the crash site. The prosecution also proved that
Appellant’s BAC was beyond the legal limit.
In order to establish the BAC evidence, the prosecution
first called Sgt Bowick to establish that Appellant had
consented to the blood draw. When trial counsel attempted to
admit Appellant’s signed consent form into evidence, defense
counsel requested an opportunity to voir dire Sgt Bowick. After
completing his voir dire, defense counsel objected to both the
admission of the document and any subsequent evidence based on
the blood draw. Counsel argued that the taking of Appellant’s
blood was an illegal search and that Appellant could not have
consented because, at the time Appellant signed the form, he was
in an impaired state from “drugs administered by the hospital,
his own suspected intoxication,” and his injuries. Defense
counsel made no offer of proof regarding any of these
allegations, and the record contains no specific medical
evidence concerning Appellant’s injuries or medical condition.
The military judge asked defense counsel for good cause why
the objection to the evidence had not been made before the
trial, as required by the military rules of evidence. See
Military Rule of Evidence (M.R.E.) 304(d)(2); M.R.E.
5
United States v. Jameson, No. 06-0881/MC
311(d)(2)(A). Defense counsel responded that his only good
cause was that he had made two unsuccessful attempts to contact
and interview Sgts Bowick and Luther, but had not been able to
speak to either of them about the consent form prior to Sgt
Bowick’s testimony that day. Defense counsel conceded that he
had the medical document showing Appellant’s BAC long before the
trial began. Defense counsel also conceded that he had
discussed certain aspects of the taking of blood with Appellant.
Defense counsel further conceded that he had never requested
assistance from the Government or the military judge in
producing either investigator for an interview before trial.
After considering the motion, the military judge determined
that defense counsel had not articulated good cause why the
motion had not been raised before trial in accordance with
M.R.E. 311(d)(2)(A). The military judge reasoned that the issue
would have been apparent to the defense early on, and that
defense counsel had not availed himself of assistance available
from the Government or the court to aid in his investigation.
Accordingly, the military judge denied the belated request.
The prosecution went on to present evidence regarding the
laboratory findings on Appellant’s BAC, thereby establishing
that his BAC did measure .11 at the time of the blood draw.
Defense counsel presented evidence of Appellant’s good military
character only. The military judge found Appellant guilty.
6
United States v. Jameson, No. 06-0881/MC
II. Analysis
A. Good Cause
The question presented is whether the military judge abused
his discretion when he determined that trial defense counsel had
not shown good cause to make an untimely motion to suppress the
results of Appellant’s BAC test. Appellant asserts that good
cause was shown because defense counsel made two unsuccessful
attempts to contact the witnesses involved in the seizure of the
blood sample. We disagree.
M.R.E. 311(d)(2)(A) requires that motions to suppress
evidence “be made by the defense prior to submission of a plea.”
The general rule is that a failure to make the motion prior to
the plea “constitutes a waiver of the motion or objection.” Id.The only exception is if “good cause” is shown by the moving
party. Id. We review the military judge’s evidentiary decision
on whether good cause was shown for an abuse of discretion.
See, e.g., United States v. Howard, 998 F.2d 42, 52 (2d Cir.
1993) (describing standard of review with respect to a decision
under the analogous federal rule as “clear legal error” or
“abuse of discretion”).
Fed. R. Crim.P. 12(e) is analogous to M.R.E. 311(d)(2).
It states, inter alia, that a motion to suppress evidence must
be raised before trial or by the deadline set by the trial judge
unless good cause is shown. Id.; see Fed. R. Crim.P.
7
United States v. Jameson, No. 06-0881/MC
12(b)(3)(c). Federal courts have determined that no good cause
exists when the defense knew or could have known about the
evidence in question before the deadlines imposed under Fed. R.
Crim.P. 12. See, e.g., Howard, 998 F.2d at 52 (finding no good
cause when defense counsel could have found out the necessary
information by interviewing defendant); United States v. Kessee,
992 F.2d 1001, 1003 (9th Cir. 1993) (finding no good cause when
the defense had access to evidence before trial). We see no
reason why the same reasoning should not apply in this Court.
See United States v. McCollum, 58 M.J. 323, 341 (C.A.A.F.
2003)(noting that M.R.E. 101 instructs military courts to look
to federal rules for guidance); see also M.R.E. 101.
In United States v. Coffin, this Court determined that
there was good cause when the government “sandbag[s]” the
defense. 25 M.J. 32, 34 n.3 (C.M.A. 1987). In Coffin, the
government told defense counsel that one of the charges against
the defendant would be dropped. Id. at 33. The evidence for
which a motion to suppress would have pertained was relevant
only to that charge. The day before trial, and after the
arraignment, the government informed defense counsel that the
charge would not be dropped. At that point, a motion to
suppress was untimely. Because there was a possibility that
defense counsel reasonably believed that the charge to which the
motion to suppress pertained was dropped, we held that the facts
8
United States v. Jameson, No. 06-0881/MC
in Coffin constituted good cause for purposes of M.R.E.
311(d)(2). Id. at 33-34.
Coffin is inapposite to this case. Here, the military
judge fully probed defense counsel’s reasons for not making a
timely motion to exclude the evidence. It is apparent from
defense counsel’s responses that neither the charge, nor the BAC
evidence at issue, was a surprise. The defense counsel knew
about the evidence at issue and also knew the general
circumstances surrounding Appellant’s signing the consent form.
Furthermore, the prosecution did nothing to contribute to the
defense decision not to file a timely motion to suppress. While
defense counsel alleged that he left messages for the
investigators, there is nothing in the record to suggest that
Government counsel, or even the investigators, knew of those
efforts. And defense counsel did not request assistance from
either the military judge or Government counsel.
Given these facts, and the law in this Court and the
federal courts, we conclude that the military judge did not
abuse his discretion in determining that there was no good cause
under M.R.E. 311(d)(2) to permit the defense’s untimely
evidentiary challenge.
B. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Appellant alleges that his trial counsel’s failure to file
a motion in limine preventing the admission of Appellant’s BAC
9
United States v. Jameson, No. 06-0881/MC
test rendered him ineffective. We analyze ineffective
assistance of counsel claims under the test outlined by the
Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).
In order to prove ineffective assistance of counsel, Appellant
must show that his trial counsel’s performance was deficient and
that the deficiency deprived him of a fair trial. United States
v. Garcia, 59 M.J. 447, 450 (C.A.A.F. 2004). With regard to
allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel, “the burden
rests on the accused to demonstrate a constitutional violation.”
United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 658 (1984). Consistent
with this principle, this Court has stated that, “‘[w]hen a
claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is premised on
counsel’s failure to make a motion to suppress evidence, an
appellant must show that there is a reasonable probability that
such a motion would have been meritorious.’” United States v.
McConnell, 55 M.J. 479, 482 (C.A.A.F. 2001) (quoting United
States v. Napoleon, 46 M.J. 279, 284 (C.A.A.F. 1997)). Given
this standard, the decisional issue is whether Appellant has
carried his burden to show that his counsel would have been
successful if he had filed a timely motion preventing the
admission of Appellant’s BAC test.
Appellant asserts that he would have succeeded at trial on
a Fourth Amendment claim to suppress this evidence because his
consent to the blood draw was involuntary. In determining
10
United States v. Jameson, No. 06-0881/MC
whether Appellant has a “reasonable probability” of succeeding
on this claim, this Court considers the totality of the
circumstances surrounding the consent. See United States v.
Wright, 52 M.J. 136, 142 (C.A.A.F. 1999). As noted by Judge
Breyer in another case involving a drunk driving blood draw,
“[p]etitioner’s mere speculation that a motion to suppress may
have proved meritorious is not enough to ‘affirmatively prove
prejudice.’” Travasso v. Clark, 162 F. Supp. 2d 1106, 1118
(N.D. Cal. 2001) (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 693).
Here, Sgt Bowick testified that he informed Appellant of
his right to consent or object to the drawing of blood. He
further testified that he observed Appellant sign the consent
form. At trial, Sgt Bowick authenticated the signed consent
form. To show prejudice under Strickland in the context of this
case, it is Appellant who must adduce evidence that his apparent
consent was, in fact, involuntary. McConnell, 55 M.J. at 484.
But there is no evidence in the record that any of the factors
marshaled by Appellant’s counsel in fact affected Appellant’s
understanding of his rights or his consent to the blood draw.
We decline to hold as a matter of law that Appellant was
incapable of consenting because he had a BAC of .11. See, e.g.,
United States v. Lindsey, 158 F. App’x 757, 759 (8th Cir. 2005)
(holding that the “‘mere fact that one has taken drugs, or is
intoxicated, or mentally agitated, does not render consent
11
United States v. Jameson, No. 06-0881/MC
involuntary’”) (quoting United States v. Rambo, 789 F.2d 1289,
1297 (8th Cir. 1986)); United States v. Scheets, 188 F.3d 829,
839 (7th Cir. 1999) (holding that “[t]he mere fact that an
individual is intoxicated does not render consent involuntary”);
United States v. Gay, 774 F.2d 368, 377 (10th Cir. 1985)
(reasoning that “[o]ne can be too intoxicated to operate a motor
vehicle, but rational enough to understand requests [to consent
to a search] and to give plausible explanations”).
We are left to compare the bare assertions of counsel that
Appellant was either impaired and incapable of consent at the
time he consented, or that that his consent was a mere
acquiescence to a claim of lawful authority, with Sgt Bowick’s
trial testimony and the signed consent form. In a similar case,
addressing “appellant’s word against that of the investigator in
possession of a signed acknowledgement form,” we reasoned that
“[w]ithout more, appellant has failed to show a reasonable
probability that a motion to suppress this evidence would have
been meritorious.” McConnell, 55 M.J. at 482.
Appellant has not met his burden to show a reasonable
probability of success on the Fourth Amendment issue.
Consequently, Appellant has failed to make the required showing
to succeed on his Sixth Amendment ineffective assistance of
counsel claim. Id. at 484; see United States v. Del Rosario-
Puente, 41 F. App’x 483, 484 (1st Cir. 2002) (holding that
12
United States v. Jameson, No. 06-0881/MC
“appellant has failed to show that the motion to suppress was
likely to succeed” and, therefore, counsel was not ineffective).
III. Decision
The decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court
of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.
13
United States v. Jameson, 06-0881/MC
EFFRON, Chief Judge (concurring in part and in the
result):
I concur with Part II.B. of the majority opinion,
which rejects Appellant’s claim of ineffective assistance
of counsel (Issue II). As noted in the majority opinion,
Appellant consented to the blood alcohol test, the
voluntariness of his consent is supported by evidence in
the record, and the defense has not demonstrated that he
had a viable claim that his consent was involuntary.
The same considerations apply with respect to the
question of whether the military judge erred in denying
trial defense counsel’s belated motion to litigate a
suppression motion at the court-martial (Issue I).
Although the test for prejudice with respect to any error
by the military judge is less burdensome on the defense
than the test for prejudice with respect to ineffective
assistance of counsel, the difference is not material here.
In light of the state of the record on the issue of
consent, Appellant has not demonstrated that he had a
viable suppression motion. Any error by the military judge
in addressing defense counsel’s belated motion at trial was
harmless. See Article 59(a), Uniform Code of Military
Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 859(a) (2000).
United States v. Jameson, 06-0881/MC
In that context, we need not reach the issue of
whether the military judge erred, particularly in light of
United States v. Coffin, 25 M.J. 32, 34 (C.M.A. 1987)
(observing that Military Rule of Evidence (M.R.E.)
311(d)(2)(A), regarding belated suppression motions,
“should be liberally construed in favor of permitting an
accused the right to be heard fully in his defense”), and
in the absence of any indication in the record that defense
counsel withheld the motion in order to sandbag the
prosecution or for any other tactical reason. Accordingly,
with respect to Issue I, I concur in the result.
2
United States v. Jameson, No. 06-0881/MC
BAKER, Judge (concurring in part and in the result):
For the reasons stated in the majority opinion and in the
Chief Judge’s separate opinion, I concur with Part II.B. of the
majority opinion and in the result. Like the Chief Judge, I
would not reach the issue of whether the military judge erred by
denying defense counsel’s tardy suppression motion. However, I
think this case is factually distinguishable from United States
v. Coffin, 25 M.J. 32 (C.M.A. 1987). Among other things,
Coffin’s counsel relied on government representations that it
would not bring the charge in question. Id. at 33. Here,
defense counsel had forty-four days from referral until his
arraignment to consider the charge and identify a basis for
suppression. Moreover, Appellant’s counsel had the wherewithal
to identify the necessary facts before trial, even without
access to the law enforcement witnesses, including access to and
knowledge gained from his client, as well as potential access to
witnesses at the hospital. Therefore, I find it unnecessary to
rely on Coffin or the statement in that opinion that Military
Rule of Evidence (M.R.E.) 311(d)(2)(A) “should be liberally
construed in favor of permitting an accused the right to be
heard fully in his defense.” 25 M.J. at 34.
I would not reach Issue I based on the facts of this case.
It is clear that defense counsel was flirting with a potential
United States v. Jameson, No. 06-0881/MC
ineffective assistance claim. Indeed, the military judge helped
to frame the claim:
MJ: All right. And presumably you had -– knew many of the
facts that you’re alleging regarding voluntariness
from speaking to your own client, correct?
DC: Yes, sir, we had discussions concerning certain
aspects of that, but -–
MJ: And did you ever request any assistance from the
government in having these witnesses return your calls
or come to your office or anything along those lines?
DC: I did not do that, sir.
MJ: Did you request any assistance from the court along
those lines?
DC: I never filed any notice or motion with the court.
MJ: And just to make sure everything is clear, the first
time you objected or raised this motion was on the
merits today, correct?
DC: Yes, sir, based upon the testimony of Sergeant Bowick.
The military judge might quickly have determined whether counsel
was engaged in a tactical gambit, was providing fallible
representation regarding a claim without merit, or had failed to
timely pursue a credible claim. Instead, the door was left open
for Appellant to litigate an ineffective assistance claim during
three years of appellate litigation, based on facts and
arguments arguably not fully developed at trial. For example,
some question remains whether counsel sought to contact
personnel at the hospital who could address Appellant’s status
2
United States v. Jameson, No. 06-0881/MC
and treatment at the time his consent to draw blood was
obtained.
Certainly, as a matter of legal policy it would have been
better for the military judge to close and secure the door
otherwise left opened. “A military judge can eliminate such a
claim merely by giving an accused the opportunity to be heard
and, then, after trial, the judge can deal with the attorney who
is not abiding by the rules.” Id. at 34 n.3. Nonetheless, we
need not ultimately decide whether the military judge erred by
not closing the door. In the final analysis, and for the
reasons stated in the majority opinion, the record as it is
demonstrates that Appellant’s ineffective assistance claim fails
on the basis of the second prong of Strickland v. Washington,
466 U.S. 668 (1984). Accordingly, I concur in the result.
3