United States v. Dustin Lee McLellan
958 F.3d 1110
11th Cir.2020Background
- McLellan, a convicted felon, was arrested in March 2017 asleep in his car with methamphetamine, drug paraphernalia, and a handgun within reach; indicted on three counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)).
- He was convicted at trial on Count One and pleaded guilty to Count Two in exchange for dismissal of Count Three; the plea admitted prior first-degree burglary (1999) as a predicate felony.
- The Presentence Report identified three predicate convictions (two Alabama first-degree burglaries and an attempted unlawful manufacture of a controlled substance), triggering the ACCA and a mandatory 15-year minimum; the district court imposed 180 months’ imprisonment.
- On appeal McLellan raised three challenges: (1) admission of Officer Jordan’s testimony (argued to be improper expert opinion and prejudicial), (2) whether Alabama first-degree burglary qualifies as ACCA “burglary” under Mathis, and (3) post-Rehaif, that the indictment, jury instruction, and plea colloquy omitted the knowledge-of-status element required by Rehaif.
- The district court stated it would have imposed the same sentence (or an equivalent non-ACCA sentence) even if ACCA did not apply; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed but remanded to clarify the judgment to reflect the alternative sentence.
Issues
| Issue | McLellan's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of Officer Jordan’s testimony about guns–drug correlation (Rule 701) | Officer Jordan testified as an expert about the link between firearms and drug activity; testimony exceeded lay-opinion scope | Testimony was lay opinion based on officer’s perception/experience and was admissible under Rule 701 | Admitted: not expert testimony; officer’s experience-based lay opinion was permissible |
| Testimony that meth amount was “sellable” (Rule 403) | Testimony unfairly prejudiced jury by suggesting drug dealing | Evidence of scales, baggies, multiple drugs made inference relevant; McLellan opened the issue; probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice | Admitted: probative and rebutted defense; no Rule 403 abuse |
| ACCA qualification of Alabama first-degree burglary (Mathis challenge) | Two burglary convictions are broader than generic burglary and thus cannot serve as ACCA predicates | Even if Mathis issue existed, district court said it would have imposed the same sentence absent ACCA; sentence is substantively reasonable | Court declined to decide predicate question; affirmed sentence because court would have imposed same term and sentence was reasonable; remand to clarify judgment |
| Rehaif: indictment, jury instruction, plea colloquy omissions of knowledge-of-status element | Convictions must be vacated because indictment and proceedings did not allege/require proof that McLellan knew he was a felon | Indictment defect is non‑jurisdictional; record shows McLellan’s felony status was not contested and he plainly knew he was a felon; any error did not affect substantial rights | Jurisdiction unaffected; any Rehaif error was plain but did not prejudice McLellan’s substantial rights; convictions and plea affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (U.S. 2016) (categorical approach: predicate conviction counts only if its elements are the same as or narrower than the generic offense)
- Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (U.S. 2019) (government must prove defendant knew his status as a person barred from firearm possession)
- Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (U.S. 1997) (stipulated prior-conviction evidence limits government’s ability to introduce details of prior convictions)
- United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625 (U.S. 2002) (defects in an indictment do not automatically deprive a court of jurisdiction)
- United States v. Brown, 752 F.3d 1344 (11th Cir. 2014) (omission of mens rea from indictment is a non-jurisdictional defect)
- United States v. Williams, 865 F.3d 1328 (11th Cir. 2017) (law-enforcement officers may give lay-opinion testimony based on professional experience)
- Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (U.S. 2016) (reasonable-probability standard for showing prejudice in sentencing error)
- Dominguez Benitez v. United States, 542 U.S. 74 (U.S. 2004) (standard for showing a plea affected substantial rights)
- United States v. Keene, 470 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 2006) (no need to decide an issue on appeal when the district court would have imposed the same sentence regardless)
- United States v. Reed, 941 F.3d 1018 (11th Cir. 2019) (Rehaif plain-error analysis and when awareness of felony status is implausible to contest)