ROMINGER
LEGAL
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions -
5th Circuit
NOT FINDING
WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE
|
ROMINGER
LEGAL
|
||||||||||
|
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions -
5th Circuit
|
||||||||||
| Need Legal Help? | ||||||||||
|
NOT FINDING
WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This
opinion or court case is from the Fifth Circuit Court or Appeals.
Search our site for more cases - CLICK
HERE |
|
|
Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _______________ m 00-20871 _______________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, VERSUS MITCHELL RAY DAUGHERTY, Defendant-Appellant. _________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas _________________________ August 28, 2001 Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, released him and placed him on "shock proba- Circuit Judges. tion" for ten years. In 1995, the court dis- charged him from probation.1 JERRY E. SMITH, Circuit Judge: In March 2000, police officers responded to Mitchell Daugherty appeals his conviction a disturbance call placed by two sisters staying of violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2001), in a motel room. They complained that which prohibits convicted felons from pos- sessing firearms "in and affecting" interstate commerce. We affirm. 1 The order read, in pertinent part: "and it I. further appearing to the satisfaction of the Court that the period of probation herein has expired, and Daugherty was convicted in state court of that all conditions of probation have been delivery of marihuana and injury to a child and satisfactorily fulfilled, . . . the Defendant is dis- was imprisoned. In 1985, the state court charged from probation." Daugherty had repeatedly harassed and 364 (5th Cir. 1995). The court must decide threatened them. The officers found Daugher- "whether any substantial evidence supports the ty standing outside the motel room, talked to finding of guilty," id. (quoting United States v. him, and searched him for weapons, finding Davis, 993 F.2d 62, 66 (5th Cir. 1993)), and none. They then spoke with the two sisters, "whether the evidence is sufficient to justify who said Daugherty had a weapon in his truck. the trial judge, as trier of the facts, in One of the officers found a rifle, which concluding beyond a reasonable doubt that the Daugherty admitted he owned and which was defendant was guilty." Id. manufactured in Egypt and imported through Knoxville, Tennessee. No person "who has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment II. for a term exceeding one year" may possess a Daugherty was indicted for being a felon in firearm "in or affecting" interstate commerce. possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 § 922(g)(1).2 The law of the jurisdiction in U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). He filed which the proceedings were held determines a motion to dismiss the indictment on the what constitutes a crime.3 So, Texas law ground that his two state felony convictions did not prohibit him from possessing a firearm, because he had been discharged from pro- 2 Section 922(g)(1) provides: bation for both offenses. The court denied that motion. (g) It shall be unlawful for any personSS Daugherty consented to a bench trial based (1) who has been convicted in any court of, on a written stipulation of facts. After the a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; . . . government had presented its case, Daugherty moved for a judgment of acquittal under FED. to ship or transport in interstate or foreign R. CRIM. P. 29 on the basis that there was an commerce, or possess in or affecting com- insufficient nexus with interstate commerce. merce, any firearm or ammunition; or to Daugherty again argued that his completion of receive any firearm or ammunition which probation allowed him to possess a firearm. has been shipped or transported in interstate The court overruled both motions and found or foreign commerce. Daugherty guilty. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2001). III. 3 The question whether a felony conviction Beecham v. United States, 511 U.S. 368, 371 may serve as a predicate offense for a prosecu- (1994). tion for being a felon in possession of a firearm What constitutes a conviction of such a pursuant to § 922(g)(1) is "purely a legal one." crime shall be determined in accordance United States v. Thomas, 991 F.2d 206, 209 with the law of the jurisdiction in which the (5th Cir. 1993). Consequently, "our review is proceedings were held. Any conviction plenary." Id. We affirm a § 922(g)(1) which has been expunged, or set aside or for conviction if substantial evidence exists to sup- which a person has been pardoned or has port it. United States v. Ybarra, 70 F.3d 362, had civil rights restored shall not be (continued...) 2 determines whether Daugherty was a convict- Daugherty, however, contends that, under ed felon for purposes of § 922(g)(1). See, TEX. CODE CRIM PROC. ANN. art. 42.12,§ e.g., United States v. Dupaquier, 74 F.3d 615, 20(a) (Vernon Supp. 2001), the successful 617 (5th Cir. 1996). completion of his probation restored his civil rights such that he no longer should be con- "Not all . . . convictions, however, count sidered convicted. for purposes of § 922(g) . . . ." Caron v. United States, 524 U.S. 308, 313 (1998). A That statute provides: conviction for which the defendant's civil rights have been restored is not a predicate If the judge discharges the defendant un- offense "unless such . . . restoration of civil der this section, the judge may set aside rights expressly provides that the person may the verdict or permit the defendant to not ship, transport, possess, or receive fire- withdraw his plea, and shall dismiss the arms." § 921(a)(20).4 . . . indictment against the defendant, who shall thereafter be released from all Section 922(g)(1) has three requirements: penalties and disabilities resulting from "(1) that the defendant previously had been the offense or crime of which he has convicted of a felony; (2) that he possessed a been convicted . . . . firearm; and (3) that the firearm traveled in or affected interstate commerce." United States Daugherty reasons that, consequently, his two v. Gresham, 119 F.3d 258, 265 (5th Cir. 1997) felony convictions cannot serve as predicate (citing United States v. Fields, 72 F.3d 1200, offenses under § 921(a)(20). 1211 (5th Cir. 1996)). The parties have stipu- lated that the first two factors are met. We have a two-part test to determine whether the "unless clause" of § 921(a)(20), which supports a § 922(g)(1) conviction, is 3 triggered. Dupaquier, 74 F.3d at 617. First, (...continued) we ask whether "the state which obtained the considered a conviction for purposes of this chapter, unless such pardon, expungement, underlying conviction revives essentially all or restoration of civil rights expressly pro- civil rights of convicted felons, whether af- vides that the person may not ship, trans- firmatively with individualized certification or port, possess, or receive firearms. passively with automatic reinstatement." Id. (quoting Thomas, 991 F.2d at 213). Second, 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20) (2001). we "determine whether the defendant was nev- ertheless expressly deprived of the right to 4 This is referred to as the "unless clause" of possess a firearm by some provision of the re- § 921(a)(20). See Caron, 524 U.S. at 309. In storation law or procedure of the state of the passing the Firearm Owners Protection Act of underlying conviction." Id. (emphasis added). 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-308, § 1(a), 100 Stat. 449 (1986), Congress amended Section 921(a)(20) "to Because Daugherty's rights were passively give federal effect to state statutes that fully restore revived by operation of law, not by individu- the civil rights of convicted felons when they are released from prison, or are granted a pardon, or have their convictions expunged." Thomas, 991 F.2d at 209. 3 alized certification,5 we examine Texas law to cuit has reached the same conclusion. In decide whether any provision or procedure United States v. Padia, 584 F.2d 85, 86 (5th limits his right to possess firearms. See Caron, Cir. 1978), we affirmed a conviction of receiv- 524 U.S. at 313-15, 317-18 (Massachusetts ing firearms in interstate commerce by a con- law). The government contends that, even victed felon, stating that probation does not assuming that Daugherty's general civil rights erase the conviction8 but only "rewards a con- were restored under art. 42.12, § 20, so as to victed party for good behavior during proba- fulfill the first part of the Dupaquier test, some tion by releasing him from certain penalties "procedure of the state of the underlying and disabilities otherwise imposed upon con- conviction" expressly deprived him of the right victed persons by Texas law." Id. (citing Gon- to possess a firearm.6 zalez de Lara v. United States, 439 F.2d 1316, 1318 (5th Cir. 1971)).9 The government argues that TEX. PENAL Although Padia and Lehmann applied art. CODE ANN. § 46.04(a) (Vernon 2001) pro- hibits Daugherty from possessing firearms. That statute generally provides that it is un- 7(...continued) lawful for a person convicted of a felony to U.S. 103, 112 n.6, 113-14 (1983). There, the possess a firearm. Daugherty claims that a Court stated that "Congress' intent in enacting person discharged from probation under art. §§ 922(g) and (h) . . . was to keep firearms out of 42.12, § 20, is no longer "convicted." the hands of presumptively risky people." Id. at 112 n.6 (citation omitted). Bearing legislative in- Neither art. 42.12, § 20, nor § 46.04 ex- tent in mind, the Court stated: "[F]or purposes of plains whether successful completion of proba- the federal gun control laws, we equate a plea of tion supervision renders one "no longer con- guilty and its notation by the state court, followed victed." Before enactment of the "unless by a sentence of probation, with being convicted within the language of §§ 922(g) and (h)." Id. at clause," however, the Supreme Court con- 114 (citation omitted). cluded that one is considered convicted even after the completion of probation.7 This cir 8 Padia involved an application of TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.12, § 7 (subsequently recodified as art. 42.12, § 20), to 18 U.S.C. 5 This circuit has considered only situations in § 922(h). Padia, 584 F.2d at 85. which the defendant's civil rights were passively restored by operation of state law. See Thomas, 9 Accord United States v. Morales, 854 F.2d 991 F.2d at 209-16 (Texas law); Dupaquier, 74 65, 68 (5th Cir. 1988) ("We have previously held F.3d at 617-19 (Louisiana law). that persons given probated sentences for Texas felony convictions, whether the probations are still 6 See Dupaquier, 74 F.3d at 617; Caron, 524 pending, . . . or successfully completed, . . . are U.S. at 316-17 (holding that, because Massachu- persons convicted for purposes of 18 U.S.C. §§ setts law expressly provided that felons could not 922(g), (h) (1982). The rationale of those possess firearms, that law activated the "unless precedents furnish guidance today.") (citations and clause" of § 921(a)(20) and prevented petitioner quotation marks omitted); United States v. from owning a firearm). Lehmann, 613 F.2d 130, 135 (5th Cir. 1980) (fol- lowing Padia's holding that "a prior conviction did 7 See Dickerson v. New Banner Inst., Inc., 460 exist where a defendant, convicted of a crime in (continued...) Texas, was given probation"). 4 42.12, § 7, to § 922(g)(1) before enactment of Daugherty responds correctly that Tune ap- the "unless clause," see Padia, 584 F.2d at 86, plied only to the definition of "convicted" as this circuit's precedent regarding the effect provided in the CHA and thus is not squarely that probation has on a conviction in Texas has on point here. The court in Tune stated, how- not changed since Congress enacted the "un- ever, that "the Legislature may wish to keep less clause." In United States v. Morales, 854 concealed handguns out of the hands of per- F.2d 65, 68 (5th Cir. 1988), we noted sons who have been convicted of a felony, specifically that the successful completion of even if those persons satisfactorily completed probation does not expunge a conviction for community supervision." Id. That rationale purposes of § 922(g). We decided Morales also applies here, because the Texas Legisla- two years after Congress amended § 922(g) to ture has passed laws designed to keep firearms include the "unless clause." Thus, under Fifth out of the hands of convicted felons. See Circuit precedent, Daugherty remained a § 46.04. convicted felon. Both § 46.04 and the CHA demonstrate the The government also contends that the power of the legislature "to regulate the wear- Concealed Handgun Act ("CHA"), TEX. ing of arms, with a view to prevent crime." GOV'T CODE ANN. § 411.171(4) (Vernon TEX. CONST. art. I, § 3. Thus, Tune provides Supp. 2001), prevents Daugherty from owning strong analogous support for affirming Daugh- a firearm. The government strongly relies on erty's conviction. Even without Tune, Tune v. Tex. Dep't of Pub. Safety, 23 S.W.3d however, Padia and its progeny are con- 358 (Tex. 2000), in which the defendant was denied a license to carry a concealed handgun because he had been convicted of a felony. 10(...continued) See id. at 360. He argued that, because his Lendon was not eligible for a license); Tex. Dep't conviction had been was set aside under art. of Pub. Safety v. Kreipke, 29 S.W.3d 334, 337-38 42.12, § 20, he was no longer "convicted" un- (Tex. App.SSHouston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. de- der the CHA. Id. at 363. The Texas Supreme nied) (holding that Kreipke was not eligible for a Court, noting that the CHA deemed a felon concealed-handgun license because of a previous convicted "after an adjudication of guilt is felony conviction, even though his crime was no entered against him whether or not his sen- longer a felony and the conviction had been set tence is subsequently probated and he is dis- aside); Tex. Dep't of Pub. Safety v. Randle, 31 charged from supervision," id. (citation omit- S.W.3d 786, 787-88 (Tex. App.SSHouston [1st ted), declared that Tune was not eligible for a Dist.] 2000, no pet.) (following the reasoning of concealed-handgun license. Id. at 364. After Kreipke and rendering judgment that defendant was Tune, most Texas courts have held that a per- not eligible for a concealed handgun license). But son applying for a concealed-handgun license see Cuellar v. State, 40 S.W.3d 724, 725-29 (Tex. App.SSSan Antonio 2001, no pet.) (holding that remains convicted for purposes of the CHA.10 the art. 42.12 order relieved Cuellar of the penalty limiting his right to possess a firearm); Kreipke, 31 S.W.3d at 338-40 (Wittig, J., concurring in part 10 See Texas Dep't of Pub. Safety v. McLendon, and dissenting in part) (stating that "[t]oday's 35 S.W.3d 632, 633 (Tex. 2000) (per curiam) erosion of right, however slight, is not unlike one of (following Tune and rendering judgment that Mc- the first drops of rain on Noah's head") (emphasis (continued...) added). 5 trolling. Daugherty urges us to reconsider the inter- state commerce element of § 922(g)(1) in light Under Texas law, Daugherty remained con- of two recent, intervening decisions: United victed even after successfully completing States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000), and probation.11 Consequently, he is subject to the Jones v. United States, 529 U.S. 848 (2000). penalties that state law imposes on convicted Both, however, are distinguishable from the felons. Section 46.04 prohibits felons from present case, because a plain jurisdictional ele- possessing firearms outside their homes. Ac- ment exists in § 922(g), and there is stipulated cordingly, Texas statutory law activated the evidence showing that the gun traveled in "unless clause" in § 921(a)(20) and prevents interstate commerce. Neither Jones nor Mor- Daugherty from possessing a firearm. rison affects or undermines the constitution- ality of § 922(g). IV. Daugherty avers that the government failed IV. to prove that he possessed a firearm "in and Because the Texas Supreme Court has not affecting" interstate commerce, as required by addressed the first issue in this case, we must § 922(g)(1). See Gresham, 119 F.3d at 265 "decide the case as would an intermediate ap- (citing Fields, 72 F.3d at 1211). He claims pellate court of the state in question . . . ." that this case is "a classic example of a purely Jefferson v. Lead Indus. Ass'n, Inc., 106 F.3d local offense." In evaluating a Commerce 1245, 1247 (5th Cir. 1997) (per curiam) (quot- Clause challenge under United States v. Lopez, ing DiPascal v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co., 749 F.2d 514 U.S. 549 (1995), however, we repeatedly 255, 260 (5th Cir. 1985)). There is substantial have said that evidence similar to that pre- support in Texas law for the proposition that sented in Daugherty's case suffices to maintain persons convicted of a felony are still consid- a § 922(g)(1) conviction,12 and Daugherty ered convicted felons even after they success- admits as much. Thus, his constitutional fully complete community supervision. This challenge to § 922(g) fails, because "the circuit has repeatedly reached that conclusion, constitutionality of § 922(g) is not open to and Daugherty cites no cases in opposition. question." United States v. DeLeon, 170 F.3d There was a sufficient nexus between Daugh- 494, 499 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 863 erty's possession of the weapon and interstate (1999). commerce. AFFIRMED. 11 See United States v. Sauseda, 2001 WL 694490, at *3 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 10, 2001) (finding defendant guilty of violating. § 922(g)(1)). 12 See United States v. Kuban, 94 F.3d 971 (5th Cir. 1996) (affirming a § 922(g)(1) conviction where the weapon was manufactured in Belgium and possessed in Texas); United States v. Rawls, 85 F.3d 240 (5th Cir. 1996) (affirming a § 922- (g)(1) conviction where the weapon was manu- factured in Massachusetts and possessed in Texas). 6 |
|
|
NOW - CASE
LAW - All 50 States - Federal Courts - Try
it for FREE
We
now have full text legal news
drawn from all the major sources!!
Pennsylvania Lawyer Help Board
Find An Attorney
TERMS
OF USE - DISCLAIMER - LINKING POLICIES
Created and Developed by
Rominger Legal
Copyright 1997 - 2010.
A Division of
ROMINGER, INC.
