United States v. Darryl Lee Baxter, 579 F. App'x 703

Darryl Lee Baxter was indicted on one count of dealing in firearms without a license and two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922. The indictment alleged three prior Alabama forgery convictions as predicate felonies.
Baxter moved pretrial to dismiss the felon-in-possession counts, arguing his prior Alabama forgery convictions were void ab initio under state law.
The district court denied the motion, concluding Baxter was challenging factual sufficiency (not a facial defect), could not collaterally attack prior convictions pretrial under Lewis v. United States, and at least two prior convictions did not appear invalid under Alabama law.
Baxter pleaded guilty to all counts while reserving the right to appeal the denial of the motion to dismiss. He was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment and 1 year supervised release.
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding the indictment was facially sufficient and a pretrial motion to dismiss could not resolve the factual question of the validity of Baxter’s prior convictions.

Issue	Baxter's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether the district court should have dismissed the felon-in-possession counts pretrial by resolving Baxter’s collateral attack on his prior convictions	The pretrial motion to dismiss was the proper vehicle to declare his prior forgery convictions void and thus negate the predicate felony element	The indictment was facially sufficient; Baxter’s attack on prior convictions raised factual issues that should be decided at trial, not by a pretrial dismissal	Denied. The court may not resolve factual sufficiency or collateral attacks on prior convictions via a pretrial motion to dismiss; the indictment tracked statutory language and was adequate
Whether Zayas-Morales requires procedural dismissal here where defendant challenges element proof pretrial	Zayas-Morales supports dismissal where stipulated facts preclude proof of an essential element as a matter of law	Zayas-Morales is distinguishable: it rested on pretrial stipulations eliminating any factual dispute; no such stipulation exists here	Denied. Zayas-Morales is inapplicable without stipulated facts negating an element; Critzer and Salman principles control

Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55 (1980) (collateral attack on prior convictions limited in federal prosecutions)
United States v. Critzer, 951 F.2d 306 (11th Cir. 1992) (indictment sufficiency is determined from its face; courts may not dismiss for insufficient evidence pretrial)
United States v. Zayas-Morales, 685 F.2d 1272 (11th Cir. 1982) (procedural dismissal appropriate where stipulated facts negate essential element)
United States v. Salman, 378 F.3d 1266 (11th Cir. 2004) (reiterating limits on pretrial factfinding and indictment-face sufficiency)
United States v. Steele, 178 F.3d 1230 (11th Cir. 1999) (standards for indictment sufficiency: elements, notice, double jeopardy protection)