676 Fed.Appx. 842 (11th Cir. 2017), 16-11594, United States v. Hinton
|Citation:||676 Fed.Appx. 842|
|Opinion Judge:||PER CURIAM|
|Party Name:||UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FREDERICK FITZGERALD HINTON, Defendant-Appellant|
|Attorney:||For UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee: William L. McKinnon, Jr., John Andrew Horn, Jolee Porter, Lawrence R. Sommerfeld, U.S. Attorney's Office, ATLANTA, GA. For FREDERICK FITZGERALD HINTON, Defendant - Appellant: Barry Vaughn Lombardo, Law Office of Barry V. Lombardo, GAINESVILLE, GA.|
|Judge Panel:||Before TJOFLAT, HULL and WILSON, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||January 18, 2017|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit|
DO NOT PUBLISH. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. D.C. Docket No. 2:14-cr-00025-RWS-JCF-1.
United States v. Hinton, 113 F.Supp.3d 1277, (N.D.Ga., 2015)
For UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee: William L. McKinnon, Jr., John Andrew Horn, Jolee Porter, Lawrence R. Sommerfeld, U.S. Attorney's Office, ATLANTA, GA.
For FREDERICK FITZGERALD HINTON, Defendant - Appellant: Barry Vaughn Lombardo, Law Office of Barry V. Lombardo, GAINESVILLE, GA.
Before TJOFLAT, HULL and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
Frederick Fitzgerald Hinton appeals his 149-month total sentence, imposed after pleading guilty to one count of committing Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § § 1951(a), 2, and one count of brandishing firearms during a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii), 2. On appeal, Hinton argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence that resulted from an initial DNA match between a sample taken from the crime scene and a DNA profile that the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (" GBI" ) kept in the Combined DNA Index System (" CODIS" ) database. This DNA profile was created and uploaded to the CODIS database from a sample taken by the Georgia Department of Corrections (" DOC" ) after Hinton pled guilty, was sentenced under Georgia's First Offender Act (" FOA" ), and sent to prison. However, the GBI kept his profile after he left prison and the match to the crime scene evidence while Hinton was on probation. He argues that the retention and use of his DNA profile violated state law and the Fourth Amendment because, under state law, he was never " convicted" of his FOA offense.
In reviewing the district court's denial of a motion to suppress, we review the findings of fact for clear error, and the application of the law to the facts de novo.
United States v. Epps, 613 F.3d 1093, 1097 (11th Cir. 2010). A district court's choice between two permissible views of the evidence cannot be clear error. United States v. Ndiaye, 434 F.3d 1270, 1305 (11th Cir. 2006). We construe all facts in the light most favorable to the prevailing party below. United States v. Lewis, 674 F.3d 1298, 1302-03 (11th Cir. 2012). We may affirm the denial of a motion to suppress on any ground supported by the record. United States v. Caraballo, 595 F.3d 1214, 1222 (11th Cir. 2010).
The district court is not required to suppress evidence on the ground that a state rule was violated. United States v. Noriega, 676 F.3d 1252, 1263 n.4 (11th Cir. 2012). Federal law, not state law, governs the admissibility of evidence in federal court, and " complaints that the evidence was obtained in violation of state law are of no effect." Id. (quotation omitted).
The Fourth Amendment provides " the right of the people to be secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP