United States v. Jones
673 F.3d 497
6th Cir.2012Background
- Defendant charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm; he moved to suppress the revolver and his confession, which the district court denied.
- Defendant pled guilty while preserving his right to appeal the suppression ruling; the district court then sentenced him under ACCA to 180 months.
- Officers observed Defendant in a high-crime area near a suspected drug deal, Defendant fled, and discarded items as he ran.
- A loaded .38 revolver and related paraphernalia were found after the foot chase; Defendant admitted possessing the firearm after Miranda.
- Presentence report relied on three prior Tennessee convictions (1978 Assault to Murder 2nd Degree; 1986 Burglary II; 1986 Assault to Murder 1 with Injury) to impose the ACCA minimum.
- District court sentenced under ACCA based on those priors; Defendant did not challenge ACCA sentencing objections in district court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion | Jones argues Strickland lacked reasonable suspicion to detain. | Jones contends the detention was unlawful without a particularized basis. | Yes; the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion. |
| Whether the 1986 convictions were on different occasions for ACCA | The government contends the convictions were separate offenses. | Jones argues they were not committed on different occasions. | No plain error; the two 1986 convictions were separate offenses. |
| Whether all three prior convictions qualify as violent felonies under ACCA | The government contends all three meet ACCA’s violent felony definition. | Jones argues some do not fit the ACCA definition under the residual clause. | All three count as violent felonies; ACCA sentence affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (2007) (seizure occurs when police exert control over movement)
- Hodari D. v. California, 499 U.S. 621 (1991) (police pursuit alone does not constitute a seizure)
- United States v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000) (headlong flight in a high-crime area supports reasonable suspicion)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (generic burglary defined as unlawful entry with intent to commit a crime)
- Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (2008) (limits residual clause to crimes similar in risk to enumerated offenses)
- Sykes v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2267 (2011) (risk-based approach to residual-clause violent felonies)
- Hill v. United States, 440 F.3d 292 (2006) (explains occasions-different test for ACCA)
- United States v. Paige, 634 F.3d 871 (2011) (Hill tests applied to determine separate occasions)
- Wilson v. United States, 27 F.3d 1126 (1994) (same residence does not mandate same occasion; separate offenses may occur)
- United States v. Carter, 360 F.3d 1235 (2004) (dropping objects can contribute to reasonable suspicion)
- United States v. Dupree, 202 F.3d 1046 (2000) (unidentified dropped object supports suspicion)
- United States v. Gibbs, 626 F.3d 344 (2010) (uses categorical approach for violent felonies under ACCA)
- United States v. Meeks, 664 F.3d 1067 (2012) (brief note on violent felonies under ACCA context)
- United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382 (2008) (plain-error review framework for sentencing)
- United States v. Eubanks, 617 F.3d 364 (2010) (plain-error review in ACCA context)
- United States v. Caruthers, 458 F.3d 459 (2006) (precedent on Tennessee burglary statutes and ACCA alignment)