United States v. Jeroba Wright
682 F.3d 1088
8th Cir.2012Background
- Wright was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) and sentenced as an armed career criminal to 180 months under the ACCA.
- At the May 25, 2009 stop in Kansas City, Wright fled in a car with a firearm; he later crashed and admitted he fled to dispose of the gun but claimed he didn’t know it was present until the driver mentioned it.
- A grand jury indicted Wright; the government sought ACCA treatment based on two prior burglary convictions; Wright had multiple counsel-related continuances and motions to replace counsel.
- On trial day, Wright sought to proceed pro se or with new counsel; the district court denied the continuance; Wright was convicted by jury and sentenced to 180 months under the ACCA.
- Wright challenges (1) denial of the continuance, (2) sufficiency of the evidence, and (3) ACCA predicate treatment; the court affirms all rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the district court abuse its discretion in denying the continuance on the trial day? | Wright argues denial violated Sixth Amendment self-representation rights. | Wright contends the denial forced a Hobson’s choice without time to prepare pro se representation. | No abuse; request was untimely and no prejudice. |
| Is the evidence sufficient to convict Wright of felon in possession? | Wright claims lack of knowledge or possession. | The government contends Wright constructively possessed the firearm by driving with knowledge of its presence. | Evidence supports constructive possession; sufficient for conviction. |
| Were Wright’s two burglary convictions properly treated as independent ACCA predicates? | Two burglary convictions should count as a single predicate since arrested and sentenced together. | Court has rejected that approach; keep them as separate predicates. | Predicates properly counted as independent; conviction affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Summage, 575 F.3d 864 (8th Cir. 2009) (continua nce standards and prejudice analysis for continuances)
- United States v. Hayles, 479 F.3d 958 (8th Cir. 2007) (prejudice standard for continuance denials)
- United States v. Myers, 503 F.3d 676 (8th Cir. 2007) (Sixth Amendment self-representation not absolute; timely request required)
- United States v. Oaks, 606 F.3d 530 (8th Cir. 2010) (timeliness of pro se request for self-representation)
- United States v. Henderson, 382 F. App’x 736 (10th Cir. 2010) (untimely pro se request on trial day not permitted)
- United States v. Weber, 84 F.3d 1056 (8th Cir. 1996) (district court may deny petitions to represent oneself based on untimely requests)
- United States v. Hiebert, 30 F.3d 1005 (8th Cir. 1994) (possession established by vehicle driver with knowledge of firearm)
- United States v. Byers, 603 F.3d 503 (8th Cir. 2010) (transitory/innocent possession not adopted defense; high-speed chase context)
- United States v. Daniels, 625 F.3d 529 (8th Cir. 2010) (ACCA predicate treatment of burglary convictions)