United States v. Kendrick Conley
19-5168
6th Cir.Feb 5, 2020Background
- Memphis police executed a search warrant at Conley’s home after a CI buy; officers found drugs and two handguns in the master bedroom and arrested Conley.
- Recorded jail calls included Conley and his father discussing discovered drugs and that Conley “wasn’t supposed to have them things.”
- Conley has multiple prior felony convictions, including a prior felon‑in‑possession conviction; at trial he stipulated to having a prior felony.
- Indictment charged two counts under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); jury was instructed only that defendant knowingly possessed a firearm and had a prior felony conviction (but not that he knew of his prohibited status).
- Jury convicted on both counts; Conley was sentenced to 120 months; after post‑conviction and § 2255 proceedings the district court reimposed the criminal judgment and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Conley’s Argument | Government’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether indictment and jury instructions satisfied Rehaif (knowledge of prohibited status) | Indictment failed to allege that Conley knew he was a prohibited person; jury instructions did not require a finding of knowledge of status, so Rehaif error entitles him to relief | Indictment’s use of “knowingly” can be read to cover status; in any event any Rehaif error is harmless because Conley stipulated to prior felonies and had multiple felony convictions from which knowledge can be inferred | Indictment ambiguous but, given stipulation and convictions, any defect did not affect substantial rights; instructions violated Rehaif but the error was plain and harmless; affirm conviction |
| Sufficiency of the evidence to convict under § 922(g) | (Argues insufficiency) | Proof showed possession (constructive: license/residence), interstate nexus, stipulation to prior felony, and incriminating recorded calls—sufficient for a rational jury | Issue forfeited for lack of developed argument; court also held the evidence was sufficient |
| Ineffective assistance of trial counsel (failure to object under Rule 403; failure to move for acquittal) | Counsel was constitutionally deficient for failing to object and for not moving for acquittal | Ineffective‑assistance claims are generally litigated on collateral review (§ 2255) because the record is better developed there | Court declines to address ineffective assistance on direct appeal; Conley may raise claims in § 2255 proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019) (holding government must prove defendant knew he possessed a firearm and knew he had the relevant prohibited status under § 922(g))
- United States v. Brown, 888 F.3d 829 (6th Cir. 2018) (pre‑Rehaif formulation of § 922(g) elements did not require proof of knowledge of status)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (articulates four‑part plain‑error review test)
- United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625 (2002) (indictment omissions may be harmless where omitted facts are overwhelmingly proven)
- United States v. Cor‑Bon Custom Bullet Co., 287 F.3d 576 (6th Cir. 2002) (indictment must allege elements to inform defense; harmless‑error analysis applies)
- United States v. Benamor, 937 F.3d 1182 (9th Cir. 2019) (no plain error under Rehaif where defendant had multiple prior felonies and stipulated to status)
- United States v. Hudson, 491 F.3d 590 (6th Cir. 2007) (statutory‑language indictments are generally sufficient if they unambiguously set forth all elements)