Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Turner, 97-1689 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Number: 97-1689 Visitors: 8
Filed: Jan. 22, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Defendant, Appellant.Kevin S. Nixon on brief for appellant., ______________, Antonius Turner on supplemental brief pro se.________________ ________________, Assistant U.S. Attorney, on brief for appellee.plea was involuntary.record on this issue is not fully developed.2255 in the district court.
USCA1 Opinion












[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT



____________________


No. 97-1689

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee,

v.

ANTONIUS TURNER,

Defendant, Appellant.

____________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[Hon. Joseph L. Tauro, U.S. District Judge] ___________________

____________________

Before

Boudin, Stahl and Lynch,
Circuit Judges. ______________

____________________

Kevin S. Nixon on brief for appellant. ______________
Antonius Turner on supplemental brief pro se. _______________
Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, and Carmen M. Ortiz, ________________ ________________
Assistant U.S. Attorney, on brief for appellee.


____________________

January 21, 1998
____________________















Per Curiam. After a thorough review of the record and __________

the briefs submitted by the parties, we affirm. Appellant

Antonius Turner ("Turner") challenges the district court's

denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized from his car

during a traffic stop. He contends the officers who stopped

him lacked a "reasonable suspicion" that he was engaged in

criminal activity, see Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 663 ___ __________________

(1979), but we disagree. Given Turner's long history of

driving without a license and ignoring warnings that his

failure to obtain a license would result in his arrest--a

history with which the arresting officer was quite familiar--

it was manifestly reasonable for the officer to assume Turner

was persisting in his failure to obtain a driver's license.

Turner has filed a supplemental brief pro se which ___ __

raises a number of additional issues, but his arguments fail.

Even if the district court did not fully comply with

Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 when it accepted his guilty plea, we find

that any error was harmless, since Turner fully understood

the quantity of drugs to which he was admitting and the

sentence upon which the parties had agreed. Fed.R.Crim.P.

11(h). Further, we see no evidence in the record that his

plea was involuntary. His claim that his sentence violated

the eighth amendment was not preserved for appeal, and

nowhere in the record does it appear that Turner ever

objected to the probation officer's statement that the



-2-













substance at issue was cocaine base, or that he made any

other objections to the Presentence Report. By pleading

guilty, he waived his right to challenge any speedy trial

violation. United States v. Cordero, 42 F.3d 697, 698-99 _________________________

(1st Cir. 1994). We do not reach any conclusion regarding

the merits of his ineffective assistance claim, since the

record on this issue is not fully developed. United States _____________

v. Carrington, 96 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir. 1996). Turner may _____________

raise this issue by filing a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

2255 in the district court. The motion should be supported

by a signed affidavit from Turner stating at a minimum

whether his attorney advised him before his guilty plea of

the results of the second weighing of the cocaine seized from

him on the night of his arrest.

Affirmed. Loc. R. 27.1. _________























-3-






Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer