United States v. Edwards , 162 F. App'x 186 ( 2006 )

Opinions of the United
2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
1-17-2006
USA v. Edwards
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 04-2685
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Edwards" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 1748.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/1748
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No: 04-2685
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
DARRIUS EDWARDS
aka
LEONARD EDWARDS
aka
FAT
aka
LEONARD WAYMANE
Darrius Edwards,
Appellant
_______________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. No. 02-cr-00524)
District Judge: Honorable Anita B. Brody
_______________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
on September 15, 2005
BEFORE: ROTH, MCKEE and FISHER, Circuit Judges,
(Filed: January 17, 2006)
1
OPINION
ROTH, Circuit Judge:
Darrius Edwards appeals his conviction and sentence for possession of a firearm
by a convicted felon. Specifically, Edwards challenges the District Court’s denial of a
motion to suppress evidence. Edwards also appeals the sentence imposed by the District
Court.
The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We have
jurisdiction over this appeal from a final judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
On March 13, 2002 two police officers observed a car being driven by the
defendant, Darrius Edwards, travel through three stop signs without stopping. The
officers attempted to pull Edwards over but he did not stop. They continued to pursue the
vehicle but at one point temporarily lost sight of it. The officers then saw the defendant
running from the vehicle and gave chase. The officers described Edwards as a black male
dressed in a blue T-shirt and grey sweat pants but did not relay this information to other
officers. Backup officers interviewed the passengers in the car who described the driver
as a black male wearing a black hooded jacket with white lettering and green pants. As
he ran, the defendant dropped a jacket containing a gun which one of
the pursuing officers picked up. The officers lost sight of the defendant during the foot
pursuit but found him stopped by two other officers who had responded to a radio call for
2
assistance. Edwards was arrested after being identified by a passenger in the vehicle.
The two pursuing officers also identified Edwards as the person they were chasing.
Following Edwards’ conviction by the jury, the District Court held a sentencing
hearing and determined that Edwards was an armed career criminal. The court increased
the length of the sentence imposed because it found that Edwards had four previous
convictions.
On appeal, Edwards argues that the motion to suppress evidence was improperly
denied because the government did not prove there was reasonable suspicion to detain
him initially. Edwards argues that because the police officers (other than the two officers
who had originally seen Edwards) were looking for a black male in a black jacket and
green pants and because Edwards was wearing a blue T-shirt and grey pants, the officers
detaining him had no reasonable suspicion to do so. Therefore, his initial detention was
illegal and the subsequent show up identification and in court identification should have
been suppressed under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. See Wong Sun v.
United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963).
This theory in support of suppression is not, however, the theory Edwards
presented to the District Court. There, he contended that the police had no reasonable
suspicion to stop his vehicle and that therefore the jacket and the gun in it were not
admissible evidence.
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(b)(3), however, requires a defendant to file
3
a suppression motion prior to trial or it is deemed waived under Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 12(e). Since Edwards failed to raise the identification theory at the
District Court level, it has been waived and we need not review the issue on the
appeal. United States v. Lockett, 406 F.3d 207 (3d Cir. 2005).
Moreover, even if the suppression theory had not been waived, it would still fail as
the facts of the case establish that Edwards was properly seized. See United States v.
Stubbs, 281 F.3d 109 (3d Cir. 2002).
Edwards also challenges his sentence pursuant to United States v. Booker, 125 S.
Ct. 738 (2005) and United States v. Fanfan, 125 S. Ct. 5 (2004). On March 9, 2005, we
advised Edwards that, if he wished to raise an issue based on the Court’s decision in
Booker, he would have to file a letter within 14 days stating the factual and legal basis for
the challenge. To date, there has been no response. Nevertheless, the Booker issue is
raised in Edwards’ brief and we will therefore remand this case to the District Court for
resentencing.
For the above stated reasons, we will affirm the judgment of conviction and
remand this case to the District Court for resentencing.
4