Rodney Smith v. United States , 379 F. App'x 811 ( 2010 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 09-10085 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
MAY 12, 2010
Non-Argument Calendar
JOHN LEY
________________________
CLERK
D. C. Docket Nos. 03-00302-CV-RLV-4,
97-00035-CR-RLV-4
RODNEY SMITH,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________
No. 09-10086
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D. C. Docket Nos. 03-00301-CV-RLV-4,
97-00035-CR-RLV-4
RICKY LAMAR WADE,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________
No. 09-10087
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D. C. Docket Nos. 03-00300-CV-RLV-4,
97-00035-CR-RLV-4
BARBARA SUE CULBERSON,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
_________________________
(May 12, 2010)
Before PRYOR, MARTIN and FAY, Circuit Judges.
2
PER CURIAM:
Rodney Smith, Ricky Wade, and Barbara Culberson appeal the denial of
their motions to vacate, set aside, or correct their sentences. 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We
granted a certificate of appealability to determine “whether counsel was ineffective
for failing to object when the prosecutor, during closing arguments, referred to
what ‘did not happen’ before the grand jury.” We affirm.
At trial, the government introduced evidence that agents of the Drug
Enforcement Agency observed Smith, Wade, and Culberson transport to
Culberson’s house a collection of substances and glassware commonly used to
manufacture methamphetamine. During a search of the house, agents discovered
sufficient methylamine to manufacture 2000 grams of methamphetamine. Agents
also discovered a handwritten note containing a recipe for manufacturing
methamphetamine.
Federal agents testified about the discovery of the note. Agent Mel
Schabilion testified that he had discovered the note in “part of a coiled notebook
that was on top of a nightstand adjacent to the bed in the master bedroom of Miss
Culberson’s house.” Agent David Gray also testified that the note was found on a
night stand. On cross-examination, Gray explained that he had mistakenly stated
in his affidavit in support of the search warrant that the note was found in a purse.
3
During closing arguments, defense counsel for Smith and Culberson
discussed conflicting evidence about who had found the note and where the note
had been discovered. Counsel for Culberson argued that Gray had made
statements about the note in his “original testimony,” before a judge, and at trial.
The prosecutor responded that Agent Gray mistakenly had made conflicting
statements about the note and asked the jury to consider the facts in evidence:
Contrary to what [Culberson’s counsel] said, Agent Gray did
not testify that he said he found the notes in the purse. Agent Gray, in
the criminal complaint, said that other agents found the note in the
purse, and he was mistaken about that. That’s not where the note was
found, but he did not claim that he found it. And you have not heard
any evidence about the grand jury, where supposedly Agent Gray said
that he found the note. You’ve heard no evidence of that. It did not
happen.
Agent Gray, as you know and as we admitted, made some
mistakes in the search warrant affidavit and the criminal complaint.
Those kind of things have to be done in a big hurry. . . . Mistakes get
made when that happens. And it’s made Agent Gray a target here for
unfair allegations that something was done wrong when in fact
nothing happened.
Defense counsel did not object to the prosecutor’s argument. The district court
later instructed the jury that “[t]he lawyer’s statements are not evidence.”
The jury found Smith guilty of four crimes: conspiracy with intent to
distribute methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846; possession of a listed
chemical, id. § 841(c)(1); 18 U.S.C. § 2; possession of a prohibited flask, id. § 2;
21 U.S.C. § 841, 843(a)(6); and use of a communication facility to commit a drug
4
offense, id. §§ 841, 843(b). Wade and Culberson were convicted of three crimes:
conspiracy with intent to distribute methamphetamine, id. §§ 841, 846; possession
of a listed chemical, id. § 841(c)(1); 18 U.S.C. § 2; and possession of a prohibited
flask, id. § 2; 21 U.S.C. § 841, 843(a)(6). The district court sentenced all three
defendants to 360 months of imprisonment. This Court affirmed their convictions
and sentences on direct appeal. United States v. Smith, 240 F.3d 927 (11th Cir.
2001).
Smith, Wade, and Culberson moved to vacate their sentences. 28 U.S.C. §
2255. Smith, Wade, and Culberson argued that trial counsel was ineffective for
failing to object when the prosecutor allegedly vouched for the credibility of Agent
Gray. Smith, Wade, and Culberson alleged that the prosecutor stated that she
“personally did not believe Gray had intentionally lied or omitted information in
preparing the search warrant affidavit.”
The district court denied the motions to vacate. The district court stated that
it was “somewhat troubled by the prosecutor’s reference to what ‘did not happen’
before the grand jury” but “in viewing the prosecutor’s argument as a whole and in
the context of arguments made by defense counsel,” the court concluded that the
prosecutor did not vouch for Agent Gray. The district court ruled that trial counsel
was not ineffective for failing to object to the prosecutor’s argument.
5
Smith, Wade, and Culberson argue that counsel made a professional mistake
that prejudiced the outcome of their trials, but we disagree. Counsel reasonably
could have determined that an objection was unnecessary. See Zakrzewski v.
McDonough, 455 F.3d 1254, 1259–60 (11th Cir. 2006). Counsel for Culberson
referred to Gray’s “original testimony” about discovering the note, and the
prosecutor, who interpreted counsel’s remark as a reference to testimony before a
grand jury, was entitled to respond that no testimony before the grand jury had
been mentioned during trial and the jurors could not consider facts not in evidence.
See United States v. Lopez, 590 F.3d 1238, 1256 (11th Cir. 2009) (recognizing, as
an exception to the prohibition against vouching for a witness, that “a prosecutor
[is entitled] to respond to arguments advanced by defense counsel in his or her
statement to the jury’”). Even if we were to assume that the failure to object
constituted deficient performance, there is no evidence of prejudice. The district
court instructed the jury that the arguments of counsel were not evidence, id., and
the government presented ample proof that Smith, Wade, and Culberson possessed
illegal paraphernalia and precursor materials sufficient to manufacture a large
quantity of methamphetamine, see Sims v. Singletary, 155 F.3d 1297, 1309 (11th
Cir. 1998). The district court did not err by denying the motions to vacate.
AFFIRMED.
6