United States v. Jose Flores
683 F. App'x 281
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Flores was convicted by a jury of being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)) after an incident involving a residential burglary.
- Homeowner confronted two men outside his back door holding a pillowcase and two small black cases containing firearms; the men dropped the items and fled.
- Defense presented a timeline and testimony asserting Flores was not involved and that his brother acted alone; testimony contained inconsistencies and an implausible timeline compared to the homeowner’s account.
- The jury found Flores guilty based on a theory of joint, constructive possession of the firearms.
- Flores appealed, arguing (1) the evidence of his possession was insufficient and (2) the district court should vacate the sentence and remand because the initial judgment mistakenly stated he pleaded guilty (a clerical error later corrected under Rule 36).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that Flores possessed firearms | Flores: evidence insufficient to show he knowingly possessed the firearms | Government: jury could infer Flores jointly and constructively possessed firearms based on burglary facts and his assistance | Affirmed — viewing evidence favorably to government, any rational juror could find constructive, joint possession beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Credibility/timeline conflict between homeowner and defense witnesses | Flores: defense timeline shows noninvolvement | Government: homeowner’s testimony was credible and defense timeline implausible/inconsistent | Jury reasonably rejected defense timeline; credibility determinations upheld |
| Whether a clerical error in the initial judgment (stating a guilty plea) requires resentencing | Flores: initial judgment erroneously stated he pleaded guilty, so sentence should be vacated and remanded | Government/District Court: amendment under Rule 36 corrected a clerical error; amendment did not change substance of sentence | Affirmed — district court properly corrected the clerical error under Rule 36; no substantive change requiring resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Davis, 735 F.3d 194 (5th Cir. 2013) (standard of review for preserved sufficiency claims)
- United States v. Terrell, 700 F.3d 755 (5th Cir. 2012) (viewing evidence in light most favorable to the government)
- United States v. Mitchell, 484 F.3d 762 (5th Cir. 2007) (jury may choose among reasonable constructions of evidence)
- United States v. Vargas-Ocampo, 747 F.3d 299 (5th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (Jackson v. Virginia standard applied)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (verdict must be upheld if any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
- United States v. Anderson, 559 F.3d 348 (5th Cir. 2009) (elements for felon-in-possession and constructive possession principles)
- United States v. Meza, 701 F.3d 411 (5th Cir. 2012) (possession may be actual or constructive, sole or joint)
- United States v. Villarreal, 324 F.3d 319 (5th Cir. 2003) (credibility determinations reviewed in light most favorable to verdict)
- United States v. Moreno, 185 F.3d 465 (5th Cir. 1999) (same)
- United States v. McCowan, 469 F.3d 386 (5th Cir. 2006) (linking a defendant to weapons can establish constructive possession)
- Ross v. Marshall, 426 F.3d 745 (5th Cir. 2005) (district court authority to correct clerical errors)
- United States v. Spencer, 513 F.3d 490 (5th Cir. 2008) (clerical amendment that does not alter sentence substantively is permissible)