United States v. Lamar Odom

Case: 11-15326 Date Filed: 07/27/2012 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 11-15326
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 5:10-cr-00069-MTT-CHW-2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LAMAR ODOM,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllDefendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
________________________
(July 27, 2012)
Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Pursuant to a plea agreement, Lamar Odom entered an unconditional plea of
Case: 11-15326 Date Filed: 07/27/2012 Page: 2 of 3
guilty to possession with intent to distribute more than 500 grams of cocaine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1). The District Court accepted the plea and
sentenced Odom to a prison term of 62 months. He now appeals his conviction,
arguing that the District Court erred in denying his motion to suppress, because
the arresting officer unconstitutionally prolonged the traffic stop that resulted in
the discovery of the cocaine.
Ordinarily, we review the denial of a motion to suppress under a mixed
standard of review, reviewing factual findings “for clear error and the application
of law to those facts de novo.” United States v. Bautista-Silva, 567 F.3d 1266,
1271 (11th Cir. 2009). However, a defendant’s unconditional guilty plea, “made
knowingly, voluntarily, and with the benefit of competent counsel, waives all
non-jurisdictional defects in that defendant’s court proceedings.” United States v.
Pierre, 120 F.3d 1153, 1155 (11th Cir. 1997) (quotation omitted). We review de
novo whether a voluntary, unconditional guilty plea waived a defendant’s right to
appeal an adverse ruling on a pre-trial motion. See United States v. Patti, 337 F.3d
1317, 1320 & n.4 (11th Cir. 2003). Where waiver applies, the ruling is not
reviewable. See id. at 1323.
A guilty plea is knowing and voluntary if the defendant entered the plea
without coercion and with an understanding of the nature of the charges and the
2
Case: 11-15326 Date Filed: 07/27/2012 Page: 3 of 3
consequences of the plea. United States v. Brown, 586 F.3d 1342, 1346 (11th Cir.
2009). A conditional plea, as opposed to an unconditional plea, preserves the
defendant’s right to appeal an adverse determination, and it “must be in writing
and must be consented to by the court and by the government.” Pierre, 120 F.3d
at 1155. See also Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(a)(2). Finally, a court’s refusal to suppress
evidence is non-jurisdictional and is waived by an unconditional guilty plea. See
United States v. McCoy, 477 F.2d 550, 551 (5th Cir. 1973).1
Odom waived his right to challenge the District Court’s denial of his motion
to suppress through the entry of an unconditional guilty plea. In his brief to this
court, he does not argue that his plea was not knowing or voluntary or that he
lacked the benefit of competent counsel. Furthermore, he does not contend that
his plea agreement preserved the right to appeal the adverse determination of any
pretrial motion, including the denial of his motion to suppress. See Fed. R. Crim.
P. 11(a)(2).
AFFIRMED.
1
In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), we
adopted as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to
the close of business on September 30, 1981.
3