United States v. Shane Jones
934 F.3d 842
| 8th Cir. | 2019Background
- Defendant Shane Jones pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm as a felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
- District court applied the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1), based on five prior Missouri convictions for sale/delivery of a controlled substance (Mo. Rev. Stat. § 195.211).
- The ACCA enhancement increases punishment if a defendant has three prior convictions for a “serious drug offense” committed on different occasions.
- Jones asserted his Missouri convictions did not qualify as “serious drug offenses” because the state statute covered some substances not controlled federally and because the statute criminalized mere offers to sell.
- The record showed all five convictions involved selling cocaine base; judicial records listed dates for three offenses on different occasions (Nov. 8, 2007; Nov. 28, 2007; Jan. 28, 2009).
- District court sentenced Jones to 190 months’ imprisonment; the Eighth Circuit affirmed the ACCA enhancement and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jones) | Defendant's Argument (Gov't) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jones’s Missouri §195.211 convictions are “serious drug offense[s]” under §924(e)(2)(A)(ii) | Missouri statute covers substances not listed federally; so convictions may not match federal definition | Missouri statute is divisible by drug identity; records show convictions were for cocaine base, a federally controlled substance | Convictions qualify as “serious drug offense[s]” because judicial records show convictions for cocaine base |
| Whether Missouri’s definition of “deliver” criminalizes mere offers that fall outside §924(e)(2)(A)(ii) | §195.211 criminalizes mere offers to sell, which Jones says are broader than federal “involving distribution” language | Prior circuit authority treats Missouri offers as involving distribution under §924(e)(2)(A)(ii) | Offer-to-sell in Missouri is categorically an offense “involving” distribution; convictions match federal offense |
| Whether the prior offenses were committed on occasions different from one another | Jones contends the record does not support separate occasions or that a court (not jury) may not make that finding | Judicial records list distinct dates; circuit precedent permits court factfinding on occasions | Dates in records sufficiently show separate occasions; Sixth Amendment jury trial claim foreclosed by circuit precedent |
| Whether ACCA enhancement was properly applied and sentence affirmed | Jones argues enhancement not supported on above grounds | Government asserts ACCA applies given qualifying convictions and distinct occasions | Court affirmed the ACCA enhancement and the 190-month sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bynum, 669 F.3d 880 (8th Cir. 2012) (explaining categorical approach for prior state drug offenses under ACCA)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (describing when a statute is divisible and permitting the modified categorical approach)
- Martinez v. Sessions, 893 F.3d 1067 (8th Cir. 2018) (holding Missouri §195.211 is divisible based on drug identity)
- United States v. Hill, 912 F.3d 1135 (8th Cir. 2019) (holding an offer to sell under Missouri law is an offense involving distribution for ACCA purposes)
- United States v. Keith, 638 F.3d 851 (8th Cir. 2011) (addressing sufficient records to show prior offenses occurred on different occasions)