United States v. Gary Allen German ( 2006 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
DECEMBER 29, 2006
No. 06-10345 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 05-60159-CR-KAM
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
GARY ALLEN GERMAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(December 29, 2006)
Before BLACK, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Gary Allen German, with appointed counsel, appeals his conviction and
sentence for drug trafficking, 21 U.S.C. § 841. He challenges the district court’s
oral order forfeiting his interest in a Fort Lauderdale property on the grounds that
the oral order conflicts with the written judgment. He also claims that his counsel
had a conflict of interest and was thus ineffective. We find that the district court’s
oral decision is controlling and that German’s interest in the property is therefore
forfeited. Additionally, we find that German is barred from raising a claim based
on counsel’s alleged conflict on direct appeal and we thus affirm.
Background
German was convicted of selling various amounts of cocaine both inside and
outside his home in Fort Lauderdale, Florida (“the property”). The government
initially sought to forfeit German’s interest in the property. However, during the
proceeding, the Federal Public Defender (“FPD”) representing German also filed a
motion related to protecting the interests of German’s wife, Kathy German, in the
property. Kathy German contended that she owned the property and that German
had no interest in it.
At the change of plea hearing, German expressly agreed, among other
things, to forfeit his interest in the property. Thereafter, the district court entered a
preliminary order of forfeiture. Nevertheless, apparently accepting Kathy
German’s contentions, the government informed the district court that it would not
2
seek a final order of forfeiture. On this basis, the district court denied Kathy
German’s motion as moot.
At the sentencing hearing, however, the district court orally ordered
German’s interest in the property forfeited. Kathy German, still represented by the
FPD, immediately filed a motion to stay or amend the judgment. The district court
did not act on this motion, but the written judgment, entered shortly thereafter, did
not mention the forfeiture. German, with newly appointed counsel, challenges
district court order on the grounds that it conflicts with the court’s written
judgment and the government’s decision not to pursue forfeiture. He further
alleges that the FPD’s interests were conflicted when he represented both German
and his wife during the proceeding. German asks for an evidentiary hearing to
establish prejudice.
Standard of Review
German raised no objections regarding the forfeiture before the district
court, and we thus review his claims for plain error. United States v. Aguillard,
217 F.3d 1319, 1320 (11th Cir. 2000). Plain error exists only where (1) there is an
error; (2) the error is plain or obvious; and (3) the error affects the defendant’s
substantial rights. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-34, 113 S. Ct. 1770,
1777-78, 123 L. Ed. 2d 508 (1993). When these conditions are met, we may then
3
exercise our discretion and correct the error if it seriously affects the fairness,
integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id. at 736, 113 S. Ct. at
1779. German bears the burden of persuasion as to this claim of plain error.
United States v. Chubbuck, 252 F.3d 1300, 1302 (11th Cir. 2001).
Discussion
As a general rule, “[w]hen a sentence pronounced orally and unambiguously
conflicts with the written order of judgment, the oral pronouncement governs.”
United States v. Bates, 213 F.3d 1336, 1340 (11th Cir. 2000). However, “[i]f the
oral sentence is ambiguous, then, in an attempt to discern the intent of the district
court at the time it imposed sentence, the reviewing court may consider extrinsic
evidence, including the commitment order.” United States v. Khoury, 901 F.2d
975, 977 (11th Cir. 1990). Here, German is essentially trying to avoid the affect of
the district court’s oral pronouncement. However, he does not expressly argue,
and we do not find that the oral pronouncement was ambiguous. Accordingly, we
will not consider the written judgment. As a mere conflict between oral and written
sentences does not give rise to plain error, we find that the oral decision controls
and we affirm.
German also challenges the forfeiture-sentence on the grounds that it is
contrary to the government’s decision not to pursue a final order of forfeiture.
4
Even if we were to accept German’s contention that the district court’s reference to
forfeiture in the oral decision is erroneous, we would not find that plain error
existed since German’s rights have not been impaired. German never asserted
before the district court that he had an interest in the property. Additionally, the
government never sought a final order addressing third party interests, and thus
Kathy German’s interest in the property remains unaffected by the oral decision.
Accordingly, we find no reversible error in the decision below.
German next argues that the FPD’s interests were conflicted when he
represented both Kathy German and himself during his criminal proceeding. As a
general rule, a defendant may not raise ineffective assistance of counsel claims for
the first time on direct appeal, since there has not been an opportunity to develop
and include in the record evidence bearing on the merits of the allegations. United
States v. Griffin, 699 F.2d 1102, 1107-09 (11th Cir. 1983). Such claims have been
relegated to collateral attacks, and should be brought to the district court through
28 U.S.C. § 2255 motions. The Supreme Court has held that the correct procedure
for appellate courts confronting these cases is to affirm the conviction and sentence
without prejudice to a defendant’s ability to raise the issue of a possible conflict of
interest on collateral review. Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 504-06, 123
S. Ct. 1690, 1694, 155 L. Ed. 2d 714 (2003). Accordingly, we affirm the decision
5
below.
AFFIRMED
6