United States v. Hyman

OPINION PER CURIAM: Reginald Todd Hyman appeals his jury convictions of possessing a firearm after a felony conviction, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(e)(1) (2000), and discharging a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(l)(A)(in) (2000). Hyman argues the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress a statement given to a Durham police officer. Finding no error, we affirm. Under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), a defendant may waive his constitutional rights to remain silent and to have counsel if he does so “voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently.” Id. at 444. This Court reviews the totality of the circumstances in concluding that a defendant’s Miranda rights were properly waived. See United States v. Cristobal, 293 F.3d 134, 140 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 963, 123 S.Ct. 396, 154 L.Ed.2d 319 (2002). Hyman avers due to his pain from the gunshot wound, he was unable to make a reasoned decision to waive his Miranda rights. Pain alone generally does not invalidate a Miranda waiver. * Cristobal, 293 F.3d at 142. While, in some circumstances, medication may render an individual incapable of making a reasoned decision to waive his rights, the record developed in this case did not indicate that the medication administered to Hyman had that effect. See id. We have reviewed the transcript of the suppression hearing and find under the totality of the circumstances, the district court did not err in finding Hyman knowingly and intelligently waived his Miranda rights. Accordingly, we affirm Hyman’s conviction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED. Footnotes [*] Hyman does not argue his waiver was involuntaiy.