Professional Documents
Culture Documents
United States v. Franco, 10th Cir. (2015)
United States v. Franco, 10th Cir. (2015)
United States v. Franco, 10th Cir. (2015)
No. 15-2056
(D.C. No. 5:14-CR-00512-KG-1)
(D. of N.M.)
CARLOS FRANCO,
Defendant - Appellant.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,
however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th
Cir. R. 32.1.
-3-
from waiver existed every time a defendants attorney inadvertently failed to raise
a suppression argument.).
Franco cannot show good cause to excuse his waiver. Although the
Supreme Court decided Heien after Francos suppression hearing, the pre-Heien
law in this circuit presented Franco with ample opportunity to raise the statutory
issue in the district court. See, e.g., United States v. Nicholson, 721 F.3d 1236,
1238 (10th Cir. 2013) (Although an officers mistake of fact can still justify a
probable cause or reasonable suspicion determination for a traffic stop, an
officers mistake of law cannot.).
Thus, in accord with Burke, we cannot review Francos claims for plain
error. See Burke, 633 F.3d at 991 (Accordingly, we hold Rule 12s waiver
provision, not Rule 52(b)s plain error provision, governs motions to suppress
evidence, including specific arguments to suppress evidence, raised for the first
time on appeal. Such motions and arguments are waived absent a showing of
good cause for why they were not raised below. We therefore refuse to consider
Burkes affidavit argument, even under a plain error analysis.).
We AFFIRM the district courts denial of Francos suppression motion.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Timothy M. Tymkovich
Chief Judge
-5-