The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the convictions of Johnnie A. Cannon on charges of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and distribution of methamphetamine, as well as the revocation of his supervised release. The court rejected Cannon’s arguments concerning a fair jury, the admission of prior convictions, the sufficiency of evidence, and ineffective assistance of counsel.
The Charges and Initial Trial
Cannon was found guilty by a jury in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. The charges stemmed from his alleged involvement in distributing methamphetamine. Following the jury’s verdict, the district court also revoked Cannon’s supervised release from a previous conviction. Cannon then appealed both his convictions and the revocation of his supervised release.
The Government’s Case: Controlled Buys and Admissions
The case against Cannon began with law enforcement working with a confidential informant, identified as MS. MS identified a woman named AP as a source of methamphetamine. MS told law enforcement that AP got her supply from “Arkansas,” who investigators believed was Cannon. Law enforcement used MS to conduct three controlled buys of methamphetamine from AP.
At the trial, AP testified that she purchased all the methamphetamine sold during the controlled buys from Cannon. During the first controlled buy, law enforcement observed a tan Ford Crown Victoria driven by a black male (later believed to be Cannon) arrive outside AP’s residence. While the Ford was outside, AP met with the driver on the porch. MS then left AP’s residence with a quarter pound of methamphetamine purchased from AP.
During the second controlled buy, law enforcement observed Cannon arrive at AP’s residence in a white SUV. Cannon picked up AP’s roommate and then left. Shortly after, Cannon returned, and the roommate went back and forth between the SUV and the residence. MS then conducted the controlled buy and returned with approximately a half pound of methamphetamine.
Before the third buy, law enforcement saw Cannon arrive at AP’s residence driving the Ford. AP got into the Ford and drove around the parking lot with Cannon. AP then got out of the Ford with a bag and returned to her residence. MS then conducted the buy and gave law enforcement a bag containing approximately a half pound of methamphetamine.
After AP exited the Ford, Cannon was pulled over by law enforcement. Officers seized $3,250 in cash, including money from the third controlled buy. Cannon was taken into custody, given Miranda warnings, and interviewed. During the interview, he admitted to multiple methamphetamine sources, purchasing and distributing various amounts of methamphetamine, and dealing with AP for about a year. He specifically admitted to distributing methamphetamine to AP on March 14.
Cannon’s Arguments on Appeal
Cannon raised several arguments on appeal, each of which the court addressed:
1. Sixth Amendment Right to a Representative Jury:
Cannon argued that his Sixth Amendment right to a jury drawn from a fair cross-section of the community was violated because no black people were on the panel of prospective jurors. The court reviewed this challenge de novo, meaning they reviewed it without deference to the lower court’s decision.
To succeed on this claim, Cannon needed to show that a distinct group (in this case, Black people) was underrepresented in the jury selection process due to systematic exclusion. However, the court found that Cannon did not provide evidence of a systematic exclusion in the jury selection process, focusing only on the lack of Black jurors in his specific case. The court cited previous rulings stating that the relevant factor is the number of Black people in the jury pool, not the number who show up for jury selection in a particular case. Therefore, the court denied Cannon’s challenge.
2. Admission of Prior Drug Conviction:
Cannon argued that the district court wrongly admitted evidence of his prior felony convictions. This falls under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), which deals with the use of prior bad acts. The court reviews a trial court’s decision to admit this kind of evidence for abuse of discretion.
While Rule 404(b) generally prohibits using prior bad acts to show a defendant’s propensity to commit a crime, it allows such evidence to prove things like motive, intent, or knowledge. The court found that the district court had properly analyzed the relevance of Cannon’s prior conviction to show his knowledge and intent to conspire to distribute methamphetamine. Therefore, the court affirmed the lower court’s decision.
3. Sufficiency of the Evidence:
Cannon argued that there wasn’t enough evidence to convict him. The court reviews this issue “de novo,” construing the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict. The court stated that it would not second-guess the jury’s determination of witness credibility.
Cannon argued that the government’s witnesses were not credible because they cooperated with the government for reduced sentences. However, the court deferred to the jury’s assessment of witness credibility. Cannon also claimed that there was no physical evidence of distribution or conspiracy. The court acknowledged the lack of photos or DNA evidence from the first buy, but emphasized that a conspiracy’s secretive nature often relies on circumstantial evidence. The court found that the testimony of Cannon’s co-conspirators, including AP, along with his own admissions, provided sufficient evidence to support his convictions.
4. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel:
Finally, Cannon claimed he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel did not move to suppress some of Cannon’s verbal admissions and failed to strike two jurors who were related by marriage. The court stated that ineffective assistance of counsel claims are generally raised by motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 rather than on direct appeal. Since the record was not fully developed, the court declined to review the merits of Cannon’s claim.
The Court’s Decision
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decisions, upholding Cannon’s convictions and the revocation of his supervised release. The court found no merit in any of Cannon’s arguments.