United States v. Davie Julian Rodriguez
713 F. App'x 815
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Rodriguez, a convicted felon, was stopped for reckless driving; police found a loaded firearm on the rear passenger floorboard of his car with a paper bearing his name. DNA testing tended to show Rodriguez handled the gun.
- He was charged and convicted under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e)(1) for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition.
- At trial the government introduced testimony and a prior Florida felon-in-possession conviction and recorded statements from Rodriguez about the prior incident; Rodriguez moved in limine to exclude that evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b).
- The district court admitted the prior-conviction evidence for the non-character purposes of proving knowledge/intent and gave a limiting instruction; Rodriguez was convicted.
- After sentencing, the Florida conviction that had been admitted and used in sentencing was nolle prossed; Rodriguez moved under Fed. R. Crim. P. 33 for a new trial based on the vacatur. The district court denied the Rule 33 motion and resentenced him; Rodriguez appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of prior Florida conviction under Rule 404(b) | Rodriguez: evidence of prior conviction was unfairly prejudicial and used to attack character; should be excluded under Rules 403/404(b) | Government: prior conviction is relevant to defendant’s knowledge/intent regarding possession and satisfies 404(b) criteria; limiting instruction mitigated prejudice | Admitted: court did not abuse discretion; 404(b) three-part test met and limiting instruction presumed followed |
| Harmlessness if prior-conviction admission erred | Rodriguez: prior conviction was powerful and probably affected verdict | Government: substantial independent evidence (officer testimony, gun location, DNA) made any error harmless | Any error would be harmless; other substantial evidence supports conviction |
| New trial under Rule 33 based on nolle prosequi of prior conviction | Rodriguez: vacatur of the prior conviction is newly discovered evidence that would likely produce a different result at retrial | Government: vacatur does not render prior-offense conduct inadmissible; other evidence of knowledge remains | Denied: Rodriguez failed to show a new trial would probably produce a different result |
| Other sentencing and statutory challenges | Rodriguez raised commerce and Guidelines arguments | Government relied on circuit precedent rejecting these contentions | Foreclosed: those claims either rejected by precedent or forfeited on reply brief |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jernigan, 341 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir. 2003) (three-part test for admissibility of Rule 404(b) evidence)
- Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342 (1990) (admission of evidence of other acts may be fair despite acquittal; limiting instructions relevant)
- Loper v. Beto, 405 U.S. 473 (1972) (distinguishing improper use of criminal history introduced solely to impeach credibility)
- United States v. Stone, 9 F.3d 934 (11th Cir. 1993) (presumption that juries follow limiting instructions)
- United States v. Phaknikone, 605 F.3d 1099 (11th Cir. 2010) (harmless-error standard for improperly admitted evidence)
- United States v. Chavez, 204 F.3d 1305 (11th Cir. 2000) (Rule 404(b) error may be harmless if other substantial evidence exists)
- United States v. Starrett, 55 F.3d 1525 (11th Cir. 1995) (standards for Rule 33 newly discovered evidence motions)
- United States v. Miller, 959 F.2d 1535 (11th Cir. 1992) (abuse-of-discretion review of evidentiary rulings)
- United States v. Hernandez, 433 F.3d 1328 (11th Cir. 2005) (abuse-of-discretion review of Rule 33 denials)
- United States v. DuBose, 598 F.3d 726 (11th Cir. 2010) (standard for abuse of discretion)
- United States v. Evans, 473 F.3d 1115 (11th Cir. 2006) (arguments raised first in a reply brief are generally forfeited)
- United States v. McAllister, 77 F.3d 387 (11th Cir. 1996) (jurisdictional element under § 922(g) satisfied)
- United States v. Martin, 864 F.3d 1281 (11th Cir. 2017) (rejecting retroactivity claim about Sentencing Guidelines amendment)