United States v. Darnell Boyce
742 F.3d 792
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- After a 911 call from Sarah Portis reporting a domestic battery and that Boyce had a gun, officers responded, saw Boyce outside, and chased him. Officer Cummings testified he saw Boyce retrieve and toss a handgun into a yard; officers recovered the gun and found .357 ammunition in Boyce’s pocket.
- Boyce was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
- While incarcerated, Boyce attempted to influence Portis to recant; Portis did not testify at trial, but the government played her 911 call recording (and provided a transcript) to the jury.
- Boyce argued his prior felonies were not qualifying predicates because he had received a form letter restoring civil rights after completing a later sentence.
- The district court admitted the 911 call as a present sense impression and an excited utterance, convicted Boyce on both counts, and sentenced him under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) to an enhanced term. Boyce appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Boyce's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a form letter restoring civil rights eliminated his prior felony predicate for § 922(g)(1) | The restoration letter returned his civil rights as to all prior convictions, so he was not a felon for § 922(g)(1) purposes | The letter restores rights conviction-by-conviction; it applied only to the sentence that had just terminated (the UUW), not earlier convictions | Court affirmed: letter applies conviction-by-conviction per circuit precedent (Burnett); Boyce failed to show his sentences terminated concurrently, so prior felonies remained predicates |
| Whether Portis’s out-of-court statements in the 911 call were admissible hearsay exceptions (present sense impression / excited utterance) | The 911 statements were not sufficiently contemporaneous or spontaneous and thus inadmissible hearsay | The call was made almost immediately after the battery; Portis was excited and the statements related to the startling event; exceptions apply | Court affirmed admission: even if present sense impression borderline, statements were admissible as excited utterances under Rule 803(2) |
| Whether ACCA enhancement required a jury finding beyond a reasonable doubt under Alleyne | Alleyne requires jury findings for facts that increase mandatory minimums, so prior-conviction facts should be jury-determined | Almendarez-Torres remains good law: prior convictions are an exception and need not be pled or found by a jury | Court affirmed sentencing: Alleyne did not overrule Almendarez-Torres; prior-conviction exception stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Buchmeier v. United States, 581 F.3d 561 (7th Cir. 2009) (form letter constitutes restoration of civil rights for purposes of § 921(a)(20))
- United States v. Burnett, 641 F.3d 894 (7th Cir. 2011) (restoration-letter effect is conviction-by-conviction)
- United States v. Ruiz, 249 F.3d 643 (7th Cir. 2001) (standards for present sense impression admissibility)
- United States v. Joy, 192 F.3d 761 (7th Cir. 1999) (standards for excited utterance admissibility)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (facts that increase mandatory minimums are elements requiring jury finding)
- Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998) (prior-conviction exception: prior convictions need not be alleged in indictment or found by jury)