United States v. Knox
687 F. App'x 51
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- William Knox, a convicted felon, was tried and convicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)) after an incident where he attempted to pass a firearm to an associate in police presence.
- Following conviction, Knox received 30 months for the felon-in-possession count and, after being found in violation of supervised release, an additional 18 months to run consecutively (total 48 months).
- At trial the parties stipulated to Knox’s prior felony conviction; the jury was instructed that the prior conviction was relevant only to the felon-in-possession element.
- On appeal Knox challenged: (1) government rebuttal referring to his prior felony, (2) the district court’s reasonable-doubt instruction, (3) ineffective assistance of trial counsel, and (4) sentencing the supervised-release violation as Grade A (instead of Grade B), and the substantive reasonableness of the overall sentence.
- The Government conceded that the supervised-release violation had been misclassified as Grade A under the Guidelines; possession under NY Penal Law § 265.03(3) is not a "crime of violence" for the Career Offender/GUIDELINES definition used, so remand for resentencing was appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutor’s rebuttal referencing prior felony | Rebuttal improperly used prior felony to show motive and prejudiced jury | Government: rebuttal explained why Knox would furtively hand off a gun; defense opened the door; prior conviction was stipulated and limited by jury instruction | No plain error; rebuttal permissible and not prejudicial |
| Reasonable-doubt jury instruction | Instruction deviated prejudicially from standard and diluted burden | Instruction (including "abiding belief", "hesitate to act", and "government not on trial") correctly conveyed reasonable doubt as a whole | Instruction proper; no reversible error |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel at trial | Counsel unreasonably failed to object to rebuttal and to jury instruction | Failures relate to matters the Court found meritless; no prejudice shown | Claim rejected because underlying objections lack merit |
| Classification of supervised-release violation | Sentencing based on Grade A increased recommended range; should be Grade B | Government concedes error; remand needed to correct range (8–14 months for Grade B) | Remand for resentencing on supervised-release violation; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Williams, 690 F.3d 70 (2d Cir.) (plain-error standard for unpreserved trial objections)
- United States v. Banki, 685 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2012) (prosecutorial-misconduct/new-trial standard)
- United States v. Tocco, 135 F.3d 116 (2d Cir. 1998) (closing-argument latitude and invited-response doctrine)
- Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1 (1994) (reasonable-doubt instruction adequacy judged by the charge as a whole)
- Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016) (sentencing error that affects Guidelines range warrants remand)
- United States v. Saldarriaga, 204 F.3d 50 (2d Cir. 2000) (instruction on government investigative choices was legally sound)
- United States v. Bright, 517 F.2d 584 (2d Cir.) (use of "abiding belief" concept in reasonable-doubt instruction upheld)
- United States v. Barrera, 486 F.2d 333 (2d Cir.) (similar approval of "abiding belief" formulation)
- Vargas v. Keane, 86 F.3d 1273 (2d Cir.) ("hesitate to act" reasonable-doubt formulation upheld)