Donald Eugene Cooks was convicted in the Western District of Oklahoma on four counts: conspiracy to commit mail theft, two counts of possession of stolen mail, and witness tampering. The underlying facts involved Cooks allegedly stealing packages from a post office and tampering with a witness, K.P., who was found near Cooks' stolen truck. During the investigation, police entered Cooks' motel room without a warrant, finding a laptop and surveillance footage that helped establish probable cause for a subsequent search warrant. Cooks was sentenced to 92 months in prison. On direct appeal, his appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw under the standard set forth in Anders v. California, arguing the appeal was wholly frivolous, while Cooks filed a pro se response.
The Tenth Circuit conducted the independent review required by Anders v. California to determine if any issues were arguable on their merits. First, the court addressed a potential Fourth Amendment violation regarding the warrantless search of the motel room. While counsel acknowledged the search appeared to be a violation, the court found no arguable ground for appeal because the issue was procedurally defaulted. Trial counsel failed to file a motion to suppress before the pre-trial deadline under Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3)(C). Although counsel raised the objection mid-trial, he admitted he knew the factual basis before the deadline and offered no reason for the delay or good cause to excuse the untimeliness. Consequently, the district court's denial of the motion was not error. Second, the court addressed Cooks' claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file the suppression motion. The court held that ineffective assistance claims are presumptively dismissible on direct appeal and should be raised in collateral proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Because the issue was not raised and ruled upon by the district court and the record was insufficient, the claim was not arguable. Finally, the court reviewed other potential issues, including the indictment, jury instructions, and the validity of Cooks' waiver of counsel under Faretta v. California. The court found no arguable defects in the Faretta hearing or the sentence, as the district court had properly determined Cooks met the requirements to represent himself.
The appeal is dismissed, and the district court's judgment and sentence stand. The decision reinforces the strict procedural requirements for raising Fourth Amendment suppression claims, emphasizing that failure to move to suppress pre-trial results in a waiver of the issue absent good cause. It also reaffirms that ineffective assistance of counsel claims regarding trial strategy or pre-trial motions are generally reserved for collateral review under § 2255 rather than direct appeal.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download