United States v. James Innocent
977 F.3d 1077
11th Cir.2020Background
- James Innocent and Elijah Jones were each indicted and convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) for possession of a firearm as felons; neither indictment alleged the defendant knew he was a felon (the mens rea clarified by Rehaif v. United States).
- Innocent: officers found a gun and large quantities of drugs in his apartment; he stipulated to four prior felony convictions; a competency evaluation showed a low IQ score but noted poor effort on testing; he did not contest the indictment below.
- Jones: observed discarding a gun as police approached; told officers he was a felon and initially denied then admitted possession; he stipulated to prior felony status and had a prior felon-in-possession conviction; his indictment likewise omitted the Rehaif element.
- Jones was sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) to a 15-year mandatory minimum based on three prior qualifying convictions; at sentencing his counsel expressly conceded the ACCA calculation after researching and declined to object.
- On appeal both defendants argued their convictions must be vacated under Rehaif because indictments omitted knowledge-of-status; Jones also challenged his ACCA sentence. The Eleventh Circuit reviewed for plain error and affirmed both convictions and Jones’s sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rehaif requires vacatur when indictment omitted knowledge-of-status and defendant did not raise it below | Innocent & Jones: indictments were defective under Rehaif and convictions must be vacated | Government: plain-error review applies; defendants must show a reasonable probability they lacked knowledge-of-status | Court: Plain error applies; neither defendant met burden—circumstantial and direct evidence showed they knew they were felons; convictions affirmed |
| Whether omission of Rehaif element in indictment is jurisdictional requiring de novo review | Innocent & Jones: indictment defects are jurisdictional or fail to charge an offense, so de novo review | Government: circuit precedent (Moore, McClellan) rejects that position; Reed governs plain-error review | Court: Rejected defendants’ jurisdictional argument; plain-error standard controls |
| Whether Jones’s failure to challenge ACCA calculation at sentencing preserved appellate review | Jones: argued novelty or plain error should excuse default | Government: counsel expressly conceded ACCA qualification and declined to object (invited/waived error) | Court: invited/waived; even under plain-error review no clear error—ACCA sentence affirmed |
| Whether Florida aggravated assault with a firearm is categorically a violent felony under the ACCA | Jones: Florida aggravated assault can be based on recklessness and thus is not categorically a "crime of violence" | Government: Eleventh Circuit precedent treats Florida aggravated assault as a crime of violence for ACCA purposes | Court: Followed circuit precedent (no plain error); aggravated assault qualifies as a violent felony for ACCA |
Key Cases Cited
- Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019) (holding mens rea includes knowledge of prohibited status under § 922(g))
- Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain-error review framework)
- United States v. Reed, 941 F.3d 1018 (11th Cir. 2019) (plain-error review in Rehaif context; burden on defendant to show prejudice)
- United States v. Russell, 957 F.3d 1249 (11th Cir. 2020) (Rehaif prejudice shown where defendant actively disputed felon status at trial)
- United States v. Moore, 954 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 2020) (Rehaif indictment defects are not jurisdictional; plain-error review applies)
- Turner v. Warden Coleman FCI (Medium), 709 F.3d 1328 (11th Cir. 2013) (Florida aggravated assault treated as a crime of violence under ACCA)
- Palomino Garcia v. United States, 606 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir. 2010) (recklessness-based mens rea does not categorize an offense as a violent felony)
- Moncrieffe v. Holder, 569 U.S. 184 (2013) (categorical approach for evaluating immigrant-removal consequences; cited for categorical methodology)
- Stitt v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 399 (2018) (explaining categorical approach under ACCA and related statutes)