United States v. Juvenal Ambriz
2013 WL 4402988, 727 F. 3d 378, 92 Fed. R. Serv. 203 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Simple possession of a controlled substance is not a lesser-included offense of distribution of a controlled substance because the crime of distribution can be committed without the defendant ever having actual or constructive possession of the contraband.
Facts:
- On January 5, 2012, undercover DEA Agent Jason Cloutier went to the Jaguars Gold Club.
- At approximately 2:00 a.m., Agent Cloutier approached a male patron and indicated he was looking for cocaine.
- The patron, later identified as Juvenal Ambriz, sold Agent Cloutier two small baggies of cocaine in exchange for $40.00.
- Agent Cloutier noted the patron had a thin goatee and a small teardrop tattoo on his face and was wearing a white hooded sweatshirt.
- About an hour later, agents saw Ambriz get into the passenger seat of a white Chevy Blazer.
- Other officers initiated a traffic stop of the Blazer shortly after it left the club.
- During the stop, a consensual search of Ambriz yielded six additional baggies of cocaine similar in appearance and content to those purchased by Agent Cloutier.
Procedural Posture:
- A grand jury indicted Juvenal Ambriz on a single count of distribution of a controlled substance.
- The case was tried in the U.S. District Court (trial court).
- The district court denied Ambriz's request for a jury instruction on the lesser-included offense of simple possession.
- The district court also denied Ambriz's motion in limine to exclude evidence of six additional baggies of cocaine found on his person.
- A jury found Ambriz guilty of distribution of a controlled substance.
- The district court sentenced Ambriz to 18 months in prison and a three-year term of supervised release.
- Ambriz (appellant) appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, challenging the district court's rulings.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does simple possession of a controlled substance under 21 U.S.C. § 844(a) constitute a lesser-included offense of distribution of a controlled substance under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)?
Opinions:
Majority - Elrod
No. Simple possession of a controlled substance is not a lesser-included offense of distribution of a controlled substance. To determine if an offense is a lesser-included offense, a court must apply the strict statutory elements test from Schmuck v. United States, which asks if it is impossible to commit the greater offense without first committing the lesser. The court found that the statutory element of 'distribution' is broader than 'possession' and includes acts such as brokering a deal, arranging a sale, or supervising a delivery. Citing precedent where individuals were convicted of distribution for arranging sales or prescribing substances without ever physically possessing them (e.g., United States v. Glenn), the court concluded that a defendant can engage in acts of distribution without having actual or constructive possession of the contraband. Because it is possible to distribute a controlled substance without possessing it, possession is not a necessary element of distribution and therefore cannot be a lesser-included offense.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the Fifth Circuit's position, aligning it with a majority of other federal circuits, that distribution and possession are distinct statutory offenses. It clarifies that the legal definition of 'distribution' is expansive, encompassing preparatory and organizational acts that do not require physical control over the narcotics. This interpretation strengthens the government's ability to prosecute individuals who function as brokers or intermediaries in drug transactions, preventing them from seeking a conviction on a lesser possession charge when their role was to facilitate a transfer.
