United States v. Barnes

Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
1-30-2008
USA v. Barnes
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-4680
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Barnes" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 1667.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/1667
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 2008 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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 06-4680
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
DARRYL K. BARNES,
Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Criminal No. 05-cr-00134)
District Judge: Honorable John R. Padova
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
January 29, 2008
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, and RENDELL, Circuit Judges
and THOMPSON, *District Judge.
(Filed: January 30, 2008)
OPINION OF THE COURT
*Honorable Anne E. Thompson, Senior Judge of the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, sitting by designation.
RENDELL, Circuit Judge.
Darryl K. Barnes appeals from his conviction for possession with intent to
distribute cocaine base (“crack”) and possession with intent to distribute cocaine in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug
trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1); and possession of a firearm by a
convicted felony in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). He also appeals his sentence of 25
years’ imprisonment. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm Barnes’ conviction and
the sentence imposed by the District Court.
Barnes appeals his conviction based on the District Court’s denials of his pre- and
post-trial suppression motions. He claims that his possession of the narcotics was not
sufficiently established, raising three arguments: (1) that there was no evidence that
Barnes occupied and/or had exclusive control of the property where the items were found;
(2) that there was no evidence that Barnes was in actual or constructive possession of the
narcotics; and (3) that the evidence only established Barnes’ presence at the scene. In
reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, “[w]e must view the evidence in the light most
favorable to the Government and sustain the verdict if any rational juror could have found
the elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Cartwright, 359
F.3d 281, 286 (3d Cir. 2004).
To show that Barnes’ constructively possessed the narcotics, the government was
required to prove “both ‘dominion and control’ over an object and knowledge of that
2
object’s existence.” United States v. Jenkins, 90 F.3d 814, 817-18 (3d Cir. 1996). The
government need not have shown that Barnes had exclusive access to the drugs. United
States v. Davis, 461 F.2d 1026, 1035 (3d Cir. 1972). In this case, there was sufficient
evidence adduced at trial to establish constructive possession. Barnes was observed
pushing his hand into a crack in the couch from which a packet of crack was recovered,
he admitted to residing in the home, crack was recovered in plain view in the kitchen,
Barnes stated that he had just finished “cooking more product upstairs in the kitchen.”
and a key to a safe containing drugs, money, and a firearm was found in a man’s shirt at a
time when Barnes was the only male on the premises. At trial, Barnes had the
opportunity to argue that others had access to and could have been responsible for the
drugs; the jury however rejected this argument. Viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the government, we cannot conclude that constructive possession was not
established.
Barnes further contends that the District Court erred in admitting his statement to
the police that he had just finished “cooking more product upstairs in the kitchen” as the
police failed to provide Miranda warnings. However, Barnes’ statement was not the
product of police interrogation and was volunteered after the police had recovered
cocaine, cash, and a firearm from a safe without any police questioning or its functional
equivalent. Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 299-302 (1980). Barnes does not allege
any police coercion, nor is there any on the record. The statement, therefore, was
3
properly admitted, even absent a Miranda warning. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436,
478 (1966).
Last, Barnes appeals his sentence, arguing that the disparity in the Guideline range
between crack and cocaine offenses resulted in an unreasonable sentence and violated the
Sixth Amendment. This claim is without merit. Barnes’ sentence of 25 years’
imprisonment was the result, not of the Guidelines range calculated by the District Court,
but of the minimum sentence set by the statutes of conviction. Because Barnes has a
previous conviction for a felony narcotics offense and the present offense involves in
excess of 50 grams of cocaine base, 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(iii) mandates a minimum
sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment. Barnes’ conviction for possession of a firearm in
furtherance of a drug trafficking crime carries a mandatory consecutive sentence of five
years’ imprisonment. 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). Consequently, the minimum sentence the
District Court could have imposed was 25 years. See United States v. Gunter, 462 F.3d
237, 248 (3d Cir. 2006).
For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the conviction and sentence imposed in
the Judgment and Commitment Order of the District Court.
4