United States v. Antonio Johnson

Citations: 47 F.3d 272; 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 2139; 1995 WL 42199Docket: 94-2188

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; February 6, 1995; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Antonio Johnson appeals his conviction for conspiracy to distribute cocaine, arguing that the district court made several errors: denying his motion to dismiss the indictment due to alleged governmental misconduct, denying his motion to suppress incriminating statements made to law enforcement, denying his motion to transfer the trial venue, and incorrectly calculating his sentencing offense level. 

The background reveals that in November 1991, the DEA began investigating significant cocaine trafficking from California to St. Louis, identifying Johnson and others as key players. Johnson was apprehended in September 1992 after fleeing a surveillance operation, denied involvement, and was released. Subsequent meetings with DEA agents led Johnson to confess to drug distribution and implicate accomplices, as well as disclose storage locations for cocaine and cash. 

In December, a superseding indictment charged Johnson and others with conspiracy to distribute cocaine. While awaiting trial, Johnson participated in a three-way call with a confidential informant and a government agent, which he contended pressured him to dismiss his attorney and plead guilty. The government countered that the informant initiated the call without direct involvement from the agent. The district court found no instigation by the government, no harm to Johnson's attorney-client relationship, and denied his motions to dismiss the indictment, suppress his statements, and transfer the trial venue. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decisions.

Johnson's co-defendants entered plea agreements and testified against him, leading to his conviction for drug trafficking. The district court determined Johnson was responsible for 66.5 kilograms of cocaine, setting his base offense level at thirty-six under USSG Sec. 2D1.1(a)(3). The court further increased his offense level by four levels for being an organizer or leader of extensive criminal activity (USSG Sec. 3B1.1(a)), two levels for firearm possession (USSG Sec. 2D1.1(b)(1)), and two levels for obstruction of justice (USSG Sec. 3C1.1), resulting in a total offense level of forty-four, mandating a life sentence. Johnson appeals both his conviction and the sentence.

In his appeal, Johnson argues that the government violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel by encouraging him to fire his attorney, thus compromising his attorney-client relationship. The government contends that his former counsel withdrew due to an unrelated conflict of interest. To dismiss the indictment, Johnson must demonstrate that his representation was adversely affected by this alleged Sixth Amendment violation. The court found no evidence connecting the government's actions to any advantage for the prosecution, ruling that the district court did not err in denying his motion to dismiss.

Johnson also claims his statements to DEA agents were coerced due to threats of indictment if he did not confess. The government asserts that he was not in custody during questioning and was informed of his Miranda rights. The court evaluated the voluntariness of the confession based on the circumstances surrounding it, including the conduct of law enforcement and Johnson’s ability to resist pressure. The district court concluded that Johnson voluntarily met with the agents, was not in custody, and waived his right to silence. The appellate court found no clear error in these determinations and upheld the denial of Johnson's motion to suppress his statements.

Lastly, Johnson requested a trial transfer, arguing that the decision regarding his guilt was premature. He based this on the magistrate court's prior denial of bond due to significant drug trafficking involvement. Johnson contends the court abused its discretion by not transferring the trial to another district.

Johnson argued for a transfer of his trial, effectively requesting the district court's recusal under 28 U.S.C. Secs. 144 and 455(a). The court has discretion over recusal motions, and Johnson's evidence failed to show any personal bias against him or reasonable questions regarding the court's impartiality. His claim that the trial should be transferred due to alleged bias from the magistrate court was deemed meritless.

Regarding sentencing, Johnson contested the district court's determination that he was responsible for 66.5 kilograms of cocaine, asserting the presentence report was unreliable and suggested double-counting of drug transactions. He also claimed the court should not have considered his statements to DEA agents, arguing for a specific warning about their use in sentencing. However, the court's findings on drug quantity were not clearly erroneous, and the use of Johnson's statements was permissible, as the standard Miranda warnings adequately informed him of the consequences.

Johnson also challenged a four-level enhancement for his role as a leader in a drug conspiracy involving five or more participants. He contended that others were in control, but the court found ample evidence of his significant involvement in the drug operations and that he had recruited individuals for drug activities. The court's characterization of Johnson as an organizer or leader was upheld as not clearly erroneous.

Johnson's conviction and sentence are affirmed by the court. Judge Donald J. Stohr presided over the case in the Eastern District of Missouri. Under the United States Sentencing Guidelines (USSG) Chapter 5, Part A, any offense level exceeding 43 is treated as an offense level of 43. Johnson received a sentence that includes five years of supervised release, as mandated by 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). The excerpt references the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees the right to counsel in criminal cases, and cites Miranda v. Arizona, establishing the necessity of informing defendants of their rights. It also mentions Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 21(a), allowing for a case transfer if significant prejudice in the current district impedes a fair trial, as well as 28 U.S.C. § 144 and § 455(a), which outline the grounds for judicial disqualification due to bias. Additionally, the district court factored in multiple cocaine amounts associated with Johnson, including deliveries from Piernas and Hodges, totaling various quantities received over time.