U.S. v. Parrish, No. 90-4001

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtBefore TACHA and McWILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and NOTTINGHAM; TACHA
Citation925 F.2d 1293
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Phillip A. PARRISH, Defendant-Appellant.
Decision Date13 February 1991
Docket NumberNo. 90-4001

Page 1293

925 F.2d 1293
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Phillip A. PARRISH, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 90-4001.
United States Court of Appeals,
Tenth Circuit.
Feb. 13, 1991.

Page 1294

Ronald J. Yengich, Yengich, Rich, Xaiz & Metos, Salt Lake City, Utah, for defendant-appellant.

Page 1295

Dee Benson, U.S. Atty., and Tena Campbell, Asst. U.S. Atty., Salt Lake City, Utah, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before TACHA and McWILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and NOTTINGHAM, District Judge. *

TACHA, Circuit Judge.

Defendant-appellant Phillip Parrish appeals a conviction of attempting to possess one kilogram of cocaine with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841(a)(1), using or carrying a firearm in connection with a drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924(c)(1), and possessing 113.4 grams of cocaine with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841(a)(1). Parrish contends the district court erred by: (1) denying a motion to suppress evidence found at his apartment because the underlying affidavit for the search warrant lacked probable cause, (2) finding the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding that he possessed cocaine with intent to distribute and used or carried a firearm in connection with a drug trafficking offense, (3) failing to sever Parrish's trial from that of his co-defendants, and (4) refusing to instruct the jury on the minimum mandatory sentences. We exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 and affirm. 1

On March 7, 1989, Morgan Sayes, an undercover agent with the Metropolitan Narcotics Task Force, purchased one ounce of cocaine from Laura Snell and her boyfriend, Greg Efron, at the Sunburst Apartments in Salt Lake City, Utah. Sayes purchased cocaine from Snell and Efron again on March 23. During this transaction, agent Sayes told Efron he was going to purchase five kilograms of cocaine and asked Efron if he would like to purchase two of them. Efron said he would contact his source to see if his source was interested. During a telephone conversation between Efron and Sayes on March 29, Sayes again indicated he would contact "his man" but believed his source would only want to purchase one kilogram. Efron told Sayes to call him back in an hour.

When Sayes called later that evening, Efron told him to come over to the apartment. Sayes drove to the Sunburst Apartments followed at a distance by officers from the Metropolitan Narcotics Strike Force. When Sayes arrived at the apartment, he noticed the bedroom door was closed. After some preliminary negotiations, Sayes insisted on examining the money before the transaction went any farther. Snell went into the bedroom, making sure the door was closed after her. She quickly returned with $14,870 in cash.

After examining the money, Sayes told Efron and Snell he was going to get the cocaine. He then walked outside and signaled the officers to make the arrest. The officers entered the apartment and arrested Efron, Snell, and Parrish, who was hiding in a walk-in closet in the bedroom. The officers found a loaded .45 caliber pistol on the shelf above Parrish within his reach. His name was scratched on the magazine of the pistol. The officers found a small amount of cocaine in the closet. In searching Efron incident to the arrest, the officers found a key to Parrish's apartment. They obtained a telephonic search warrant to search that apartment, where they found approximately one-quarter pound of cocaine. Although three adults were in Parrish's apartment when the officers arrived, none of them was arrested.

A federal grand jury returned a multi-count indictment against Efron, Snell, and Parrish. All three were tried jointly before a jury. Parrish was convicted of attempting to possess one kilogram of cocaine with intent to distribute, using and carrying a firearm in connection with a drug trafficking offense, and possessing 113.4 grams of cocaine with intent to distribute.

Page 1296

I. Probable Cause for the Search Warrant

Probable cause to issue a warrant exists if there are "[s]ufficient facts ... for a reasonably prudent person to believe that a search of the described premises would uncover evidence of a crime." United States v. Burns, 624 F.2d 95, 99 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 954, 101 S.Ct. 361, 66 L.Ed.2d 219 (1980). Our duty as a reviewing court is simply to ensure the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding probable cause existed. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 2332, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983).

Here, the affidavit of Bill McCarthy of the Metropolitan Narcotics Strike Force states Efron told Sayes on the telephone he would take the cocaine from their transaction to the apartment of his source. The affidavit also states Parrish gave the address of his apartment to the officers when he was arrested. One of the officers present at the arrest, Detective Houseley, testified she recognized Parrish's name and address as that of a known narcotics trafficker subject to an on-going investigation. She explained she had been on a narcotics surveillance at his apartment. Based on this evidence, we are convinced the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding there was probable cause for issuing the warrant.

Parrish contends the affidavit is insufficient because it contains no specific information indicating evidence of a crime would be found at his apartment. In particular, he argues Houseley personally had not observed any drug trafficking. The mere fact an affidavit does not contain personal knowledge of illegal activity at the residence is not fatal to the determination of probable cause. See United States v. Rahn, 511 F.2d 290, 293 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 825, 96 S.Ct. 41, 46 L.Ed.2d 42 (1975). We conclude McCarthy's affidavit established probable cause to believe cocaine would be found in Parrish's apartment because allegations in it would lead a reasonable person to believe evidence of a crime would be found.

II. Sufficiency of the Evidence

Parrish also contends the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's finding that he possessed cocaine with intent to distribute and used or carried a firearm in connection with a drug trafficking offense. The evidence is sufficient if a reasonable jury could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Levario, 877 F.2d 1483, 1485 (10th Cir.1989). We evaluate the evidence in a light most favorable to the government, United States v. Alonso, 790 F.2d 1489, 1492 (10th Cir.1986), and make all reasonable inferences and credibility choices in favor of the jury's conclusions, United States v. Massey, 687 F.2d 1348, 1354 (10th Cir.1982).

A. Possession of Cocaine with Intent to Distribute

Parrish contends there was no evidence he actually possessed the cocaine found in his apartment. An individual has constructive possession of narcotics if he knowingly holds the power and ability to exercise dominion and control over the narcotics. United States v. Culpepper, 834 F.2d 879, 881 (10th Cir.1987). Exercising dominion and control over a residence where contraband is concealed may constitute constructive possession of the narcotics. See United States v. Morales, 868 F.2d 1562, 1573 (11th Cir.1989). Further, constructive possession may be established by circumstantial evidence. Culpepper, 834 F.2d at 882. The government, however, must show a sufficient nexus between the defendant and the narcotics. Id.

Here, there is ample evidence to show Parrish exercised dominion and control over the apartment...

To continue reading

Request your trial
114 practice notes
  • U.S. v. Wacker, Nos. 93-3372
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • December 26, 1995
    ..."the firearm was available to the defendant in the vicinity where the drug trafficking offense took place." United States v. Parrish, 925 F.2d 1293, 1297 (10th Subsequent to briefing and oral argument on this appeal, however, the Supreme Court clarified what evidence is necessary to support......
  • U.S. v. de Francisco-Lopez, FRANCISCO-LOPE
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • July 17, 1991
    ...car's hidden compartments were consistent with cocaine which was in the middle of the distribution process. See United States v. Parrish, 925 F.2d 1293, 1297 (10th Cir.1991) ("A large quantity of cocaine can be sufficient to support a judgment that a defendant intended to distribute the dru......
  • United States v. Young, No. CR 17-0694 JB
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of New Mexico
    • May 3, 2019
    ...BACKGROUND In the Motion, Young begins by asserting his expectation that the United States will rely on United States v. Parrish, 925 F.2d 1293 (10th Cir. 1991), and United States v. Greer, 620 F.2d 1383 (10th Cir. 1980), "for the proposition that a jury can only be informed of the possible......
  • United States v. Edwards, No. CR 16–3068 JB
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of New Mexico
    • August 22, 2017
    ...punishment, the jury shall not be informed of the possible penalties.’ " Motion in Limine at 2 (quoting United States v. Parrish, 925 F.2d 1293, 1299 (10th Cir. 1991) ) (internal quotations omitted). The United States then compares the Tenth Circuit's position to other circuits' positions. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
112 cases
  • U.S. v. de Francisco-Lopez, FRANCISCO-LOPE
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • July 17, 1991
    ...car's hidden compartments were consistent with cocaine which was in the middle of the distribution process. See United States v. Parrish, 925 F.2d 1293, 1297 (10th Cir.1991) ("A large quantity of cocaine can be sufficient to support a judgment that a defendant intended to distribute th......
  • United States v. Deleon, No. CR 15-4268 JB
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of New Mexico
    • October 29, 2019
    ...to "accept the jury's resolution of the evidence as long as it is within the bounds of reason"); United States v. Parrish, 925 F.2d 1293, 1297 (10th Cir. 1991) (finding that the evidence necessary to support a verdict "need not negate all possibilities except guilt"). Fo......
  • United States v. Baker, No. CR 17-2556 JB
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of New Mexico
    • October 25, 2018
    ...in sentencing and that a district court has no discretion to instruct the jury on sentencing ramifications. See United States v. Parrish, 925 F.2d 1293, 1299 (10th Cir. 1991) ("We hold a jury instruction about mandatory minimum sentences was properly omitted because the offenses do not......
  • Anderson v. U.S., No. 96-C-1070-S.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. United States District Court of Utah
    • April 2, 1999
    ...must be sustained. Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137, 138, 116 S.Ct. 501, 133 L.Ed.2d 472 (1995); United States v. Parrish, 925 F.2d 1293, 1297 (10th A. "Uses" a Firearm. In Bailey, the Supreme Court held that in order to convict a defendant for "use" of a firearm un......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT