Filed: Sep. 26, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Opinions of the United 2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 9-26-2008 USA v. Harrison Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 06-1970 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008 Recommended Citation "USA v. Harrison" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 485. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/485 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United St
Summary: Opinions of the United 2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 9-26-2008 USA v. Harrison Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 06-1970 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008 Recommended Citation "USA v. Harrison" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 485. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/485 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United Sta..
More
Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
9-26-2008
USA v. Harrison
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-1970
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Harrison" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 485.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/485
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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 06-1970
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
WILLIAM HARRISON
a/k/a
SLOAN ANDERSON
William Harrison,
Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Criminal Action No. 03-cr-00430)
District Judge: Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
September 25, 2008
Before: BARRY, AMBRO, and JORDAN, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed September 26, 2008)
OPINION
AMBRO, Circuit Judge
William Harrison, also known as Sloan Anderson, appeals his conviction and
sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
His attorney has moved to withdraw his representation under Anders v. California,
386
U.S. 738 (1967). We grant the motion and affirm the conviction and sentence.1
A police officer testified that at around 5:00 a.m. on September 24, 2002, he saw
Harrison (who was carrying an orange bag) fire a gun. He chased Harrison and, after
temporarily losing sight of him, caught him and arrested him. A witness residing in the
area testified that at approximately 5:00 a.m. that day, gunshots woke her up. As she
looked out of her window, she saw someone running, orange bag in hand, and the runner
tossed an object into a vacant lot. The police later found a gun in the lot.
Because Harrison was a felon, he was charged, tried and convicted for being a
felon in possession of a firearm. The District Court sentenced him to 188 months’
imprisonment. Harrison and his counsel have identified several potential grounds for
appeal: the District Court erred in ordering Harrison to submit to a competency
examination, should not have denied Harrison’s request that he be permitted to represent
himself, incorrectly admitted the witness’s 911 call, erred in denying Harrison’s motions
for a new trial and for acquittal, and erroneously overruled Harrison’s objections at
sentencing. Harrison further argues that his counsel was ineffective.
Our rules provide that “[w]here, upon review of the district court record, trial
counsel is persuaded that the appeal presents no issue of even arguable merit, trial counsel
1
The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We have appellate
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
2
may file a motion to withdraw and supporting brief pursuant to Anders.” 3d Cir. LAR
109.2(a). “If the panel agrees that the appeal is without merit, it will grant trial counsel’s
Anders motion, and dispose of the appeal without appointing new counsel.”
Id.
We are satisfied that counsel has filed an adequate Anders brief. Further, we agree
that any grounds for appeal are frivolous. Given the rambling and confused statements
Harrison made to the District Court, the Court properly ordered a competency hearing.
See 18 U.S.C. § 4241(a). Further, because Harrison refused to answer questions relevant
to whether he truly desired to represent himself, understood the case, and was competent
to stand trial, the Court properly declined to allow Harrison to represent himself. See
United States v. Peppers,
302 F.3d 120, 131–32 (3d Cir. 2002). Moreover, the Court
properly admitted the 911 call under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(1) and (2). In
addition, it properly denied the motions for a new trial and for acquittal because the
evidence was sufficient to permit a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, see United
States v. Brodie,
403 F.3d 123, 134 (3d Cir. 2005), because there was no “newly
discovered” evidence and the facts do not suggest diligence on Harrison’s part, see United
States v. Jasin,
280 F.3d 355, 361 (3d Cir. 2002), and because we know no reason to
conclude (as Harrison alleges) that the prosecutor intentionally introduced false evidence.
As for sentencing, the District Court properly followed the procedures announced in our
Court’s decision in United States v. Gunter,
462 F.3d 237, 247 (3d Cir. 2006), and the
ultimate sentence is not unreasonable. Finally, we decline to consider Harrison’s
ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, which is inappropriate on this direct appeal. See
3
United States v. Haywood,
155 F.3d 674, 678 (3d Cir. 1998).
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the District Court and grant
counsel’s motion to withdraw.
4