Nero v. United States, 73 A.3d 153

Background

Antonio Nero was convicted after a jury trial of ADW, mayhem while armed, AAWA, felony assault, and multiple PFCV counts stemming from a shooting in the alley against Richards, and also unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon, unregistered firearm, and ammunition charges.
Sentences for each count run concurrently except that counts related to each victim run consecutively, for an aggregate 180 months’ imprisonment plus five years of supervised release and $1,500 to the Victims of Violent Crime Fund.
The party occurred after a birthday gathering; Richards, Randy Brown, and Mark Brown were injured when Nero shot Richards at close range and later shot Randy Brown as he sat in a car; Mark Brown witnessed the events.
Richards suffered a severed spinal canal and paralysis from bullet fragments; Randy Brown required antibiotics and pain control, while Mark Brown received minimal treatment.
On appeal Nero challenged (1) admission of his prior felony conviction to the jury, (2) sufficiency of evidence for two felony assault convictions, and (3) merger of several convictions.
The court affirmed some convictions, reversed the conviction against Mark Brown for felony assault, and remanded to vacate certain Richards-related convictions and related sentences.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admission of prior felony conviction to the jury	Nero argues the prior felony should not have been read to the jury.	Government contends the stipulation was proper to prove unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon, an element of the offense.	Stipulation properly read; no abuse of discretion.
Sufficiency of evidence for felony assault against Mark Brown and Randy Brown	Sufficiency failed to show significant bodily injury for both victims.	Evidence supports significant bodily injury for Randy Brown but not for Mark Brown.	Sufficient evidence for Randy Brown; insufficient for Mark Brown.
Mergers of convictions	Several convictions for ADW, mayhem, AAWA, and PFCV should be treated as separate offenses.	Convictions merge under Blockburger and related authorities where elements overlap and single act involves multiple offenses.	ADW, mayhem while armed, and AAWA against Richards merge; felony assault and AAWA merge; three PFCV convictions merge with the merged offenses; Mark Brown conviction reversed; Richards-related convictions vacated as appropriate.
Overall disposition as to travel of convictions and sentences	No separate challenge to ADW; focus on prior conviction and mergers.	Merges reduce count total and potential resentencing is appropriate.	Remand for vacation of certain Richards-related convictions and possible resentencing; remaining convictions affirmed.
Significant bodily injury standard application	Bullet wounds inherently constitute significant injury.	Injury analysis requires case-by-case evaluation; some injuries may not meet the standard.	Randy Brown injury deemed significant; Mark Brown injury not; standard applied as guided by R.S. and Quintanilla.

Key Cases Cited

Goodall v. United States, 686 A.2d 178 (D.C.1996) (abuse-of-discretion review for evidentiary rulings)
Eady v. United States, 44 A.3d 257 (D.C.2012) (reversal when prior convictions influence sentencing, not admissibility for guilt)
In re R.S., 6 A.3d 854 (D.C.2010) (significant bodily injury standard guidepost)
Quintanilla v. United States, 62 A.3d 1261 (D.C.2013) (short-term injuries not significant bodily injury)
McCoy v. United States, 890 A.2d 204 (D.C.2006) (double jeopardy merger principle)
Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (U.S.1932) (test for whether offenses are separate)
Graure v. United States, 18 A.3d 743 (D.C.2011) (merger when offenses arise from same victim and act)
Matthews v. United States, 892 A.2d 1100 (D.C.2006) (merger due to overlapping predicate offenses)
Gathy v. United States, 754 A.2d 912 (D.C.2000) (du D.C. merger principles)
Appleton v. United States, 983 A.2d 970 (D.C.2009) (merger review framework)