United States v. Anton Shayron Hernandez , 743 F.3d 812 ( 2014 )

Case: 13-10326 Date Filed: 02/21/2014 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-10326
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:11-cr-00524-JDW-EAJ-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ANTON SHAYRON HERNANDEZ,
a.k.a. Blue,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(February 21, 2014)
Before TJOFLAT, MARCUS and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Anton Shayron Hernandez appeals after a jury convicted him on three counts
of possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §
Case: 13-10326 Date Filed: 02/21/2014 Page: 2 of 6
841(a)(1). On appeal, Hernandez argues that: (1) the court erred in denying his
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29 motion for acquittal because the evidence
presented was insufficient to sustain his convictions; and (2) the district court
abused its discretion and violated his due process rights when it denied his
application for authorization of funds to obtain an expert mental health evaluation
for mitigation purposes at sentencing. After careful review, we affirm.
We review de novo the district court’s denial of a Rule 29 motion. United
States v. Vernon, 723 F.3d 1234, 1266 (11th Cir. 2013). In doing so, we view the
evidence in the light most favorable to the government, drawing all reasonable
inferences and credibility choices in favor of the jury’s verdict. Id. If a reasonable
jury could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, then we
will not overturn the jury’s determination. Id. Importantly, to the extent that an
appellant’s argument “depends upon challenges to the credibility of witnesses, the
jury has exclusive province over that determination and [we] may not revisit the
question.” United States v. Emmanuel, 565 F.3d 1324, 1334 (11th Cir. 2009). A
district court’s decision to grant or deny an application for funding of expert
services is reviewed only for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Rinchack,
820 F.2d 1557, 1563 (11th Cir. 1987). Constitutional challenges, as well as
whether appellants have standing to bring suit, are generally reviewed de novo.
2
Case: 13-10326 Date Filed: 02/21/2014 Page: 3 of 6
See United States v. Hunt, 526 F.3d 739, 743 (11th Cir. 2008); Wilson v. State Bar
of Ga., 132 F.3d 1422, 1427 (11th Cir. 1998).
First, we are unpersuaded by Hernandez’s argument that the district court
erred in denying his Rule 29 motion for acquittal. To convict a person of
possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance under 21 U.S.C. §
841(a)(1), the government is required to prove three elements: “(1) knowledge; (2)
possession; and (3) intent to distribute.” United States v. Poole, 878 F.2d 1389,
1391 (11th Cir. 1989). Hernandez appears to challenge the sufficiency of the
evidence with respect to each element.
In this case, the district court did not err in denying Hernandez’s Rule 29
motion for a judgment of acquittal. Although styled generally as a complaint
regarding the sufficiency of the evidence presented against him at trial, the details
of Hernandez’s argument make clear that his appeal is limited solely to an attack
on the credibility of the government’s witnesses -- specifically, the law
enforcement officers involved in the events underlying the charged offenses.
Because questions of witness credibility are the “exclusive province” of the jury,
however, we will not entertain challenges in that regard on appeal. Emmanuel,
565 F.3d at 1334. Thus, putting the issue of witness credibility aside and
construing the trial testimony and other evidence in favor of the jury’s verdict, as
we are required to do, Hernandez’s convictions must be upheld. See Vernon, 723
3
Case: 13-10326 Date Filed: 02/21/2014 Page: 4 of 6
F.3d at 1266. To illustrate, five separate officers testified at trial about three
distinct encounters with Hernandez, during which they collectively witnessed his
personal involvement in illicit drug transactions and accompanying possession of
crack cocaine. Indeed, Hernandez even concedes on appeal that the officers
“certainly testified to events that support[ed] a conviction” on each count in the
indictment. In short, the evidence construed in favor of the verdict supports
Hernandez’s convictions, and the district court did not err in denying his motion.
We also reject Hernandez’s claim that denied his application for
authorization of funds to obtain an expert mental health evaluation. As an initial
matter, litigants must always establish their standing to proceed in court -- not only
to bring claims, but also to appeal judgments. Arizonans for Official English v.
Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 64 (1997) (“The standing Article III requires must be met by
persons seeking appellate review, just as it must be met by persons appearing in
courts of first instance.”). Regarding appellate standing, only a litigant “who is
aggrieved by [a] judgment or order may appeal.” Knight v. Alabama, 14 F.3d
1534, 1556 (11th Cir. 1994) (quotations omitted).
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(e), the court must authorize expert services with
accompanying funding when the defendant successfully demonstrates that (1) he is
financially unable to obtain such services, and (2) the services are “necessary for
adequate representation.” Moreover, if a defendant demonstrates to the trial judge
4
Case: 13-10326 Date Filed: 02/21/2014 Page: 5 of 6
that his sanity at the time of the offense will be a significant factor at trial,
constitutional due process further requires that “the State must, at a minimum,
assure the defendant access to a competent psychiatrist who will conduct an
appropriate examination and assist in evaluation, preparation, and presentation of
the defense.” Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 83-84 (1985).
To begin with, it appears that Hernandez does not have standing to challenge
the district court’s disposition of his ex parte application for funds to retain expert
services because the court resolved the application in his favor. See Knight, 14
F.3d at 1556. Contrary to Hernandez’s account, the court actually found that
“expert services [were] necessary for adequate representation,” and granted his
application. Moreover, although the court limited the authorization of funds to
$1,500 -- i.e., $500 less than the $2,000 Hernandez ultimately requested --
Hernandez does not take issue on appeal with the amount of the court’s award.
Rather, he challenges only what he seems to mistakenly construe as a denial of his
application. Thus, because there was no denial of his request, he was not
aggrieved by the court’s order and may not appeal. See id.In any case, to the extent that Hernandez implicitly challenges the amount of
the court’s authorization, he has failed to show that the court abused its discretion
or violated his due process rights in that regard. Hernandez has not shown that the
court’s $1,500 award was insufficient to retain the desired expert services, and
5
Case: 13-10326 Date Filed: 02/21/2014 Page: 6 of 6
nothing in the record suggests that was the case. Nor is there any indication that
the State otherwise denied Hernandez access to a mental health expert during the
proceedings. Therefore, to the extent that Hernandez has standing to appeal the
district court’s order, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
6