Smith v. United States
20 A.3d 759
| D.C. | 2011Background
- Appellant, a 16-year MPD veteran, was terminated and awaiting reinstatement while working as an ATM technician for Bantek in Virginia.
- On Sept. 11, 2006, he was stopped in DC for a stop-sign violation; officers found a loaded Glock in a fanny pack and arrested him.
- He was charged with ACPWL, UF, and UA; at plea, he disclosed a Virginia license but no DC license for the weapon.
- Plea counsel advised pleading guilty to ACPWL, UF, UA; sentence was 90 days with suspended jail time and nine months' unsupervised probation on each count.
- In 2008, appellant filed a writ of error coram nobis; the trial court denied, and he appealed the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Armored Car Act preempt DC gun laws in this case? | Smith argues Act preempts DC gun restrictions as applied to him. | United States contends Act does not apply to his pre-arrest conduct in DC. | Preemption claim unavailing; convictions stand. |
| Does the Second Amendment extend to carrying a loaded firearm in a car outside the home in this context? | Smith contends Heller extends rights beyond home to possession in public, including in his car. | DC law prosecutes non-home possession; plea waivers affect review; merits aside, record shows no imminent self-defense scenario. | Even if considered, claim fails; convictions affirmed. |
| Was counsel ineffective for not arguing Armored Car Act preemption or for advising a guilty plea on that ground? | Smith asserts ineffective assistance for not challenging preemption. | Government and court treat the preemption issue as unavailable in this posture; advising otherwise would be erroneous. | Ineffectiveness claim deemed unpersuasive within the record; convictions upheld. |
| Whether the writ of coram nobis was properly denied or merits an evidentiary hearing. | Smith seeks vacation of convictions or an evidentiary hearing. | Writ is extraordinary; undisputed facts could not have prevented judgment; no fundamental error shown. | Coram nobis petition affirmatively denied; no remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Peak, 759 A.2d 612 (D.C.2000) (plea waives non-jurisdictional defects)
- Collins v. United States, 664 A.2d 1241 (D.C.1995) (plea generally waives non-jurisdictional errors)
- Hamid, 531 A.2d 628 (D.C.1987) (All Writs Act standards for coram nobis)
- Howerton v. United States, 964 A.2d 1282 (D.C.2009) (Heller focus on home defense; limits on interpretation)
- Brown v. United States, 979 A.2d 630 (D.C.2009) (Heller: District's gun laws not entirely invalidated)
- Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21 (1974) (Blackledge/Menna waiver exception for collateral attack limitations)
- Menna v. New York, 423 U.S. 61 (1975) (Blackledge/Menna waiver framework)
- Arrington v. United States, 585 A.2d 1342 (D.C.1991) (guilty plea generally not subject to collateral attack except power to prosecute)
- Sims v. United States, 963 A.2d 147 (D.C.2008) (collateral attack limitations under waiver doctrine)
- United States v. Hamid, 531 A.2d 628 (D.C.1987) (extrinsic error requirements for coram nobis)