Bland v. United States, 153 A.3d 78

Defendant Charles Bland was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm (UPF) and the trial judge imposed an enhanced mandatory minimum (3 years) under D.C. Code § 22‑4503(b)(1) because Bland had prior convictions for armed robbery and assault with a dangerous weapon (ADW).
At trial Bland stipulated only that he had a prior felony conviction punishable by more than one year; he and defense counsel expressly agreed the jury need not know the nature of the priors and did not contest the prosecutor’s representations about their substance.
Bland appealed, arguing Fifth and Sixth Amendment error because a judge — not a jury — found that his priors were "crimes of violence other than conspiracy," and he also contended the government failed to present sufficient evidence to support that predicate finding.
The government had filed an information and provided a certified judgment of conviction to Bland’s counsel before trial; the record contains prosecutor statements and defense counsel acknowledgments identifying the prior offenses as armed robbery and ADW.
The trial judge did not obtain Bland’s personal on-the-record affirmation/denial of the priors as required by D.C. Code § 23‑111(b), but Bland never identified this omission as a basis for relief and did not dispute the substance of the priors.

Issue	Bland's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether Bland waived his Apprendi claim	Bland now argues constitutional error because judge, not jury, found violent priors	Bland expressly stipulated to keep priors from jury; counsel agreed jury need not know priors and would not contest enhancement	Waived — invited-error/stipulation prevents taking opposite position on appeal
Whether Apprendi requires jury to find priors were "crimes of violence"	Jury must find any fact increasing mandatory minimum	Apprendi excepts the fact of a prior conviction; court may resolve legal characterization of priors	Rejected Bland: prior-conviction exception controls; judge may decide whether priors qualify
Sufficiency of evidence that priors were armed robbery and ADW	Government did not produce certified judgments to court at sentencing; insufficient proof	Government filed information, provided certified judgments to defense, and record contains admissions and counsel acknowledgments	Held sufficient on the totality of the record; no genuine dispute about the priors
Whether conspiracy-based liability would bar enhancement	If prior convictions were based on conspiracy theory, they might be excluded	UPF enhancement excludes conspiracy convictions, but statutory scheme treats substantive convictions as crimes of violence regardless of liability theory for purposes of enhancement	Rejected Bland: record does not show priors were only conspiracy convictions; enhancement proper

Preacher v. United States, 934 A.2d 363 (D.C. 2007) (invited-error/doctrine bars asserting on appeal a position taken to obtain a trial benefit)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (facts increasing statutory maximum must be found by a jury, except the fact of a prior conviction)
Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998) (recognizes exception for prior convictions as judge-found facts)
Eady v. United States, 44 A.3d 257 (D.C. 2012) (confirms prior-conviction exception post-Apprendi in D.C. courts)
Towles v. United States, 115 A.3d 1222 (D.C. 2015) (determination that a prior conviction is a "crime of violence" is a legal question for the court)
Brocksmith v. United States, 99 A.3d 690 (D.C. 2014) (plain-error standard and harmlessness where defendant raises no factual dispute about priors)
Tann v. United States, 127 A.3d 400 (D.C. 2015) (party may adopt or acquiesce in another’s statement as an admission)