United States v. Darius Montaque Haymon ( 2016 )

Case: 15-15556 Date Filed: 10/07/2016 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-15556
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:15-cr-20584-CMA-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DARIUS MONTAQUE HAYMON,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(October 7, 2016)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Darius Haymon appeals his conviction for possessing a firearm as a
convicted felon. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Haymon challenges the denial of his motion
Case: 15-15556 Date Filed: 10/07/2016 Page: 2 of 3
to suppress firearms and ammunition that officers discovered while executing a
search warrant on his residence. Hymon argues that he was entitled to a hearing to
examine whether the affidavit used to obtain the warrant contained false
information and whether, if redacted, the affidavit provided probable cause to issue
the warrant. We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Haymon’s motion
to suppress without an evidentiary hearing. No hearing was necessary because
Haymon failed to make a substantial showing that the affidavit contained a false
statement. See Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155–56 (1978). The affiant did
not make a false statement by averring that Haymon “is in possession of an AK-47
type rifle” when Haymon was detained in a jail. Haymon was in constructive
possession of the firearm as long as it was subject to his control, and as stated in
the affidavit, the firearm was “inside the premises that [Haymon] share[d] along
with [his girlfriend] and their minor child” at “7601 N.W. 17 Avenue Miami,
Florida.” See United States v. Folk, 754 F.3d 905, 917 (11th Cir. 2014). That the
information was 12 days old did not make it stale because the information
pertained to an object stored in Haymon’s home. See United States v. Bervaldi, 226
F.3d 1256, 1266 (11th Cir. 2000) (Because “[r]esidency in a house . . . endures for
some length of time,” “the passage of [six months] alone did not erode the
reasonable belief that [the defendant still] resided at [the same address].”). And
2
Case: 15-15556 Date Filed: 10/07/2016 Page: 3 of 3
even if the trial court had disregarded the statement about Haymon’s current
possession of the firearm, no hearing was necessary because the affidavit provided
probable cause to believe that the residence contained evidence that Haymon was
unlawfully in possession of a firearm and that he intended to commit murder. See
United States v. Kapordelis, 569 F.3d 1291, 1310 (11th Cir. 2009). The affidavit
stated that Haymon, his girlfriend, and their minor child resided in a residence in
which a confidential information had observed an AK-47 type firearm and that
Haymon, who was associated with a gang, sold narcotics, and was a convicted
felon, was the intended target of a homicide and thereafter posted on two dates on
his Facebook page that “shit finna get real ugly soon” and he was gonna “get my
own justice.”
We AFFIRM Haymon’s conviction.
3