United States v. Brandon Ivory , 397 F. App'x 40 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 09-41042     Document: 00511250930          Page: 1    Date Filed: 10/01/2010
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    October 1, 2010
    No. 09-41042
    Summary Calendar                         Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee
    v.
    BRANDON D. IVORY,
    Defendant-Appellant
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Texas
    USDC No. 5:09-CR-928-1
    Before JONES, Chief Judge, and SMITH and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Brandon D. Ivory appeals his convictions for possession with intent to
    distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana and for conspiring to do so. He
    contends that the district court should have sua sponte conducted a hearing to
    determine whether his confession was voluntary.                  See Jackson v. Denno,
    
    378 U.S. 368
     (1964) (remanding for a hearing on a confession’s voluntariness).
    He concedes that review is only for plain error because he did not raise the issue
    in the district court. See United States v. Guanespen-Portillo, 
    514 F.3d 393
    , 402
    *
    Pursuant to 5TH CIR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .
    R. 47.5.4.
    Case: 09-41042     Document: 00511250930 Page: 2       Date Filed: 10/01/2010
    No. 09-41042
    (5th Cir. 2008); United States v. Iwegbu, 
    6 F.3d 272
    , 274 (5th Cir. 1993). “Under
    the plain error standard, [this court] will reverse only if (1) there is an error,
    (2) the error is clear under current law, and (3) the error affects the defendant’s
    substantial rights.” Guanespen-Portillo, 
    514 F.3d at 402
    . When those three
    showings are made, this court has the discretion to correct the error if it has a
    serious effect on the integrity, fairness, or public reputation of the judicial
    proceedings. 
    Id. at 402-403
    . A trial court must conduct a voluntariness hearing
    on its own motion if the evidence reflects a genuine question of the voluntariness
    of a confession.    See Guanespen-Portillo, 
    514 F.3d at 402
    ; United States v.
    Renteria, 
    625 F.2d 1279
    , 1282-83 (5th Cir. 1980).
    Citing United States v. Powe, 
    591 F.2d 833
    , 845-46 (D.C. Cir. 1979), Ivory
    argues that his confession was involuntary because it was induced by assertions
    that Ivory could help himself by confessing.       A confession is not rendered
    involuntary simply because a suspect is advised that “there are advantages to
    cooperating.” United States v. Ornelas-Rodriguez, 
    12 F.3d 1339
    , 1348 (5th Cir.
    1994). “It is reasonable to assume that the cooperation of an arrested person
    often is prompted by a desire for leniency for himself or others,” and statements
    made in such circumstances are not per se involuntary.           United States v.
    Robertson, 
    582 F.2d 1356
    , 1368 (5th Cir. 1978). Moreover, a federal agent
    testified without contradiction that the agents told Ivory that they could not
    promise him anything and that he would have to talk to the United States
    Attorney.
    Ivory offered little more than vague allusions to the voluntariness of his
    confession. He stated that he confessed only because he was tired, but the
    confession itself was highly detailed, and the record does not indicate that the
    interrogation was especially long, although it ended around 2:00 a.m. Ivory
    offered no direct evidence of threats or inherently coercive behavior. Moreover,
    he never moved to suppress the confession; rather, his lawyer affirmatively
    stated there was nothing to suppress.
    2
    Case: 09-41042       Document: 00511250930 Page: 3    Date Filed: 10/01/2010
    No. 09-41042
    Of slightly greater significance, Ivory testified at trial that he was not
    advised of his Miranda 1 rights prior to his confession. The record does not show
    that the district court made any explicit or specific finding that Ivory was
    mirandized prior to confessing. However, the district court was aware of Ivory’s
    testimony as well as the starkly contrasting testimony from a federal agent in
    rebuttal. In addition, the court had been explicitly advised that there was no
    suppression issue. Because the evidence as a whole did not clearly raise a
    genuine question of voluntariness before the district court, we find no clear or
    obvious error in the failure to have a voluntariness hearing. The judgment of
    the district court is AFFIRMED. See Guanespen-Portillo, 
    514 F.3d at 403-05
    .
    1
    Miranda v. Arizona, 
    384 U.S. 436
     (1966).
    3