108 Cal.App.5th 1203
Cal. Ct. App.2025Background
- Defendant Antoine Leon Richardson was convicted by a jury of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, and for misdemeanor exhibiting a concealable firearm in public, following an incident in Lancaster, California in September 2022.
- Richardson had a prior felony record, including convictions for willful infliction of corporal injury and two counts of vehicle theft.
- During the 2022 incident, Richardson threatened a woman at a liquor store and brandished a firearm at her. Later, a search of his home revealed ammunition but no firearm; Richardson admitted ownership of the ammunition and brandishing the gun.
- The trial court sentenced Richardson to three years and eight months for the felon-in-possession charges and a concurrent term for exhibiting the firearm.
- Richardson appealed, challenging the constitutionality of California's felon-in-possession statutes under the Second Amendment, and argued that multiple sentences violated Penal Code section 654.
Issues
| Issue | Richardson's Argument (Appellant) | State's Argument (Respondent) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of felon-in-possession statutes | Statutes facially unconstitutional under Second Amendment, citing Bruen | Statutes are constitutional under Supreme Court precedent and tradition | Statutes are facially constitutional |
| Sufficiency of evidence for felon-in-possession charges | Statutes should be interpreted to not apply to non-violent felonies | Richardson indisputably possessed firearm/ammo as felon | Conviction supported by evidence |
| Multiple sentencing under Penal Code section 654 | Exhibiting and possession charges should be considered same act/objective | Separate acts/objectives justify multiple punishments | Multiple sentences permitted |
| Precedential value of Ninth Circuit’s Duarte decision | Duarte compels unconstitutionality finding | Duarte vacated; not binding, distinguishable, not a facial challenge | Duarte not followed |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (U.S. 2008) (recognized individual Second Amendment rights, limited by longstanding prohibitions on possession by felons)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (U.S. 2010) (applied Second Amendment to the states, reiterated felon prohibition)
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2022) (clarified test for constitutionality of firearm regulations under Second Amendment)
- United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (U.S. 2024) (court upheld restrictions for persons posing specific threats, confirming some categorical prohibitions are valid)