United States v. Clinton Hicks
958 F.3d 399
| 5th Cir. | 2020Background
- In 2018 Clinton Hicks pled guilty to two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and was sentenced to 180 months.
- This Court initially summarily affirmed; the Supreme Court vacated and remanded in light of Rehaif v. United States, which requires proof that a defendant knew he belonged to the prohibited class.
- On remand Hicks argued (1) the factual basis for his plea was insufficient and (2) his plea was unknowingly and involuntary because the court did not advise him of the Rehaif knowledge element.
- Hicks had signed a factual resume admitting possession of firearms after felony convictions; the PSR showed multiple prior convictions and several multi-year incarcerations, and a recent state felon-in-possession charge shortly before the charged incidents.
- Because Hicks did not raise these arguments below, the Court applied plain-error review (error, plainness, effect on substantial rights, and whether the error seriously affects judicial integrity).
- The Court held the record provided an ample basis to infer Hicks knew of his felon status, Hicks failed to show a reasonable probability he would have gone to trial, and therefore any Rehaif-related error did not affect his substantial rights — the conviction was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of factual basis for guilty plea | Hicks: record lacked adequate factual basis that he knew he was a felon when possessing firearms | Govt: factual resume + PSR and prior sentences/arrests give overwhelming support for knowledge | No plain error; factual basis sufficient |
| Plea was unknowing/involuntary because court failed to advise of Rehaif element | Hicks: failure to inform under Rule 11(b)(1)(G) and due process made plea unknowing/involuntary | Govt: plain-error standard requires showing reasonable probability he would not have pled; record shows knowledge so no prejudice | No plain error; Hicks failed to show he would not have pled guilty |
| Whether Rehaif omission is structural error requiring automatic reversal | Hicks (relying on Fourth Circuit/Gary): omission is structural and reversible per se | Govt/Fifth Circuit: Fifth Circuit applies plain-error/prejudice approach; Rehaif omission not automatically reversible here | Not structural in this circuit; no automatic reversal |
| Other preserved statutory/ACCA challenges | Hicks preserved several challenges (commerce element, temporality, ACCA specifics) | Govt: those arguments are foreclosed by Fifth Circuit precedent | Foreclosed by circuit precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019) (government must prove defendant knew he belonged to prohibited class under § 922(g))
- Puckett v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 1423 (2009) (plain-error review framework discussed)
- United States v. Gomez, 905 F.3d 347 (5th Cir. 2018) (plain-error standard explained)
- United States v. Ortiz, 927 F.3d 868 (5th Cir. 2019) (court may consider entire district court record when assessing factual basis for plea)
- United States v. Alvarado-Casas, 715 F.3d 945 (5th Cir. 2013) (defendant must show reasonable probability he would not have pled but for the error)
- United States v. Williams, 946 F.3d 968 (7th Cir. 2020) (applied reasonable-probability test to Rehaif-related plea challenges)
- United States v. Gary, 954 F.3d 194 (4th Cir. 2020) (concluded Rehaif omission is structural error requiring automatic reversal)
- United States v. Burghardt, 939 F.3d 397 (1st Cir. 2019) (applied prejudice/reasonable-probability approach to Rehaif claims)