United States v. Edward Warren

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
FILED
No. 10-10366 U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
APRIL 6, 2011
D.C. Docket No. 1:09-cr-20641-DLG-2 JOHN LEY
CLERK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee,
versus
EDWARD WARREN,
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(April 6, 2011)
Before BARKETT, HULL and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Defendant Edward Warren appeals his two drug convictions and sentences
for violations of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 and 18 U.S.C. § 2. On appeal,
Warren raises these issues:
(1) whether the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress
post-arrest statements as involuntary, in violation of Miranda v.
Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966);
(2) whether the district court erred in finding that there was probable
cause for his arrest and in not suppressing his post-arrest statements
as the fruit of an illegal arrest;
(3) whether there were multiple trial errors that cumulatively
prejudiced Warren to the extent that he is entitled to a new trial; and
(4) whether his 103 months’ sentence was both substantively and
procedurally unreasonable.
After review and with the benefit of oral argument, we conclude that issues
1, 3, and 4 lack merit. As to issue 2, the record shows that Warren’s motion to
suppress was filed the day before trial and claimed only that his post-arrest
statements were involuntary because he was not properly afforded his Miranda
warnings; it did not raise the probable cause for arrest argument. However, the
district court sua sponte addressed the probable cause issue, ruling that Warren
was given proper Miranda warnings, his post-arrest statements were voluntary,
there was probable cause for his arrest, and therefore, his post-arrest statements
2
were admissible. On appeal, Warren claims that the district court erred in finding
probable cause for his arrest.
In the past, we have exercised discretion to review an issue the district court
has actually ruled upon, finding that such a ruling preserves the issue for our
review. United States v. Lall, 607 F.3d 1277, 1290 (11th Cir. 2010). But, given
how the case proceeded, the government at the evidentiary hearing did not have
notice that probable cause for the arrest was an issue as to the post-arrest
statements. While we exercise our discretion to address the issue, the government
should have an opportunity to present evidence on the probable cause for arrest
issue. Thus, we affirm the district court’s rulings as to the Miranda issue, the
denial of the new trial, and the sentencing issues, but vacate the district court’s
ruling as to the probable cause for arrest issue and remand solely for an
evidentiary hearing as to the motion to suppress with reference to the probable
cause for arrest issue.
AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED.
3