UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus DARIUS FIELDS, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 19-10639
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
October 2, 2020
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED October 2, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk. USDC No. 3:17-CR-388-1.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas
Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges.
Darius Fields was tried and convicted of three firearms offenses. On appeal, Fields raises three issues. First, he contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction under an aiding-and-abetting theory of making false statements in connection with the acquisition of a firearm, as well as making false statements with respect to information that a licensed firearms dealer is required to keep in its records. Second, Fields asserts that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon. Third, Fields posits that the district court abused its discretion by including, in the written judgment, a special condition of supervised release that it omitted from the oral pronouncement of sentence. We affirm the conviction but vacate the sentence in part and remand for amendment of the written judgment by removing the unpronounced special condition.
I.
Fields was convicted of acquiring a firearm from a licensed dealer by false or fictitious statement, in violation of
Counts One and Two arise from the purchase of a pistol. In May 2017, Fields drove LaPorshya Polley, his then-girlfriend and subsequent co-defendant, to DFW Gun Range, a federally licensed firearms dealer located in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. There, Polley purchased an FN 5.7 millimeter pistol. As part of the transaction, she completed a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Firearms Transaction Record (“Form 4473“), in which she certified that she was purchasing the firearm for herself and not for someone else.
Fields entered the store several minutes after Polley, proceeded to examine the contents of various display cases, and briefly stood near Polley and the attending salesman. Despite their close proximity, Fields did not acknowledge or otherwise indicate that he knew Polley. He left the store alone; Polley remained there for approximately thirty minutes, completing the requisite forms, successfully clearing a background check, and finalizing the purchase. During that time, Fields and Polley exchanged several texts, in one of which Polley wrote, “They only make the kind you told me not to get.” After completing the purchase, Polley left the store carrying a bag. She rejoined Fields in the car, and they departed together.
Events during the following month gave rise to Count Three. In June 2017, the police sought Fields in connection with the kidnapping of a teenage girl. The officers located Fields with Polley in a hotel room,
The police also discovered a firearm in the car that Fields and Polley drove to the hotel and had parked outside. After initially denying that he had traveled in the car, Fields admitted it belonged to a friend and that he rode in it to the hotel. He gave officers the car key and permission to search the vehicle. Before searching, police looked through the window and saw an AK-47 style pistol that was partially covered in clothes. They later discovered that, like the FN 5.7 pistol, the second firearm had also been purchased by Polley.
A jury determined that Fields aided and abetted Polley in making a straw purchase, thus finding him guilty of Counts One and Two. The jury also found that as a convicted felon, Fields had possessed firearms and ammunition, convicting him of Count Three. The district court sentenced Fields to 216 months in prison and pronounced several special conditions of supervised release. In its written judgment, the court included an additional special condition not mentioned in the oral pronouncement—that Fields must submit to mental health treatment as directed by his probation officer.
II.
Fields contends that the evidence was insufficient to convict him on any of the three counts. He timely moved for a judgment of acquittal, properly preserving his challenge, so we review de novo. United States v. Huntsberry, 956 F.3d 270, 279 (5th Cir. 2020). “In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence and the inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the verdict, and we determine whether a rational jury could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Mitchell, 484 F.3d 762, 768 (5th Cir. 2007). Moreover, “[w]e do not reevaluate the weight of the evidence or the credibility of the witnesses.” United States v. Bowens, 907 F.3d 347, 350 (5th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted) (ellipsis in original). Furthermore, “[t]he standard of review is the same . . . whether the evidence is direct or circumstantial.” United States v. Burton, 126 F.3d 666, 670 (5th Cir. 1997). Finally, “[i]t is not necessary that the evidence exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; the jury is free to choose among reasonable constructions of the evidence.” United States v. Pennington, 20 F.3d 593, 597 (5th Cir. 1994) (citations omitted).
III.
On Count One, a violation of
If Fields assisted Polley in making a straw purchase, that assistance would satisfy the elements of both counts. Indeed, an untruthful answer on a Form 4473 violates both relevant statutes.
First, intentionally providing a false answer regarding the actual purchaser violates
Fields contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction because the government failed to show that he engaged in any affirmative conduct. Fields is correct that aiding and abetting requires “shared . . . criminal intent” and “some affirmative conduct” by the defendant in support of the criminal act. United States v. Colwell, 764 F.2d 1070, 1072 (5th Cir. 1985). Furthermore, “[t]he intent necessary to support a conviction can be demonstrated by direct or circumstantial evidence that allows an inference of an unlawful intent, and not every hypothesis of innocence need be excluded.” United States v. Aggarwal, 17 F.3d 737, 740 (5th Cir. 1994).
Fields contends that the government failed to prove that he engaged in any affirmative conduct, asserting that the best pieces of evidence the government produced were the text messages between Polley and Fields while she was in the firearms dealership. Although Fields posits that the text messages merely demonstrate that he was curious about Polley‘s whereabouts, he fails to address several other pieces of evidence suggesting the transaction was a straw purchase that Fields aided and abetted. Indeed, such evidence includes his driving Polley to and from the dealership,1 the pair‘s staggered entrance and exit of the store, Fields‘s not indicating that he knew Polley while in the store,2 the salesman‘s testimony that he was surprised by Polley‘s insistence on
Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence is more than sufficient for a jury to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Fields was guilty of aiding and abetting Polley in a straw purchase and thereby providing false information on the Form 4473. Therefore, we affirm the conviction as to Counts One and Two.
IV.
The jury convicted Fields of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon—the FN 5.7 pistol and its ammunition found in the hotel room and the AK-47 style pistol found in the car (Count Three). To convict under
The parties stipulated that Fields was previously convicted of a felony and that the firearms and ammunition in question traveled in or affected interstate commerce, leaving only the second element in dispute. Though Fields was indicted for possessing two firearms and the box of ammunition, the simultaneous possession of multiple firearms is treated as a single offense under
Possession under
Fields contends that there was insufficient evidence of possessing the firearms and ammunition. He asserts that because he and Polley were both in the hotel room and had ridden together in the car, his case is one of joint occupancy. Fields correctly states that in joint-occupancy cases, the government must prove more than that a defendant had “mere control or dominion over the place” where contraband is found. United States v. Mergerson, 4 F.3d 337, 349 (5th Cir. 1993). Indeed, “something else (e.g., some circumstantial indicium of possession) is required besides mere joint occupancy before constructive possession is established.” Id. In joint-occupancy cases, we “employ a common sense, fact-specific approach” to determine whether a defendant had constructive possession. United States v. Wright, 24 F.3d 732, 735 (5th Cir. 1994).
The government produced sufficient evidence that Fields possessed the firearms
Moreover, the pistol had a round in the chamber with the safety off, providing evidence that that weapon had quickly been placed into the bag and covered with clothes for hiding. A rational jury could infer that the pistol had been in plain view until the police knocked on the door, after which the firearm was quickly hidden. Thus, the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find that Fields had constructive possession of the ammunition and FN 5.7 pistol.
Fields contends that the evidence is insufficient to find that he possessed the AK-47 style pistol in the car. He points out that the car was not registered in his name, and the clothes on and near the weapon were predominantly women‘s attire. He also notes that the police did not present DNA or fingerprint evidence linking him to the firearm, nor was the gun registered to him.
A reasonable jury, however, could still infer that the car was under Fields‘s control. Fields initially told police that a friend had dropped him off at the hotel. When officers confronted him about the car key on the desk, Fields changed his story, admitting the car belonged to a friend and conceding that he and Polley had traveled to the hotel in it. Fields then consented to a search of the car and advised police that they must manually unlock it, as the key‘s electronic feature did not work.
Both the fact that Fields consented to the search and his knowledge of the key‘s idiosyncratic functionality suggest that he had control over the vehicle. Inside the car, the firearm was in plain view; though it was partially covered by clothing, police could see the pistol from outside the car. Because the firearm was in plain view, as with the ammunition inside the hotel, a reasonable jury could find that Fields had constructive possession of it. See McKnight, 953 F.2d at 902.
A reasonable jury could also find Fields‘s shifting story about the car suspicious and could infer that he knew there was a firearm inside. Indeed, “[e]vasive and erratic behavior may be evidence of guilty knowledge.” United States v. Casilla, 20 F.3d 600, 603 (5th Cir. 1994). Thus, a reasonable jury could find that Fields possessed both weapons and the ammunition. We affirm on Count Three.
V.
Fields asserts that in its written judgment, the district court erroneously included a special condition of supervised release that was not orally pronounced at sentencing and, therefore, the special condition regarding mental health treatment must be removed from the written judgment. The government agrees. “When a defendant had no opportunity to object to special conditions (because they were unmentioned at sentencing),
The judgment of conviction is AFFIRMED. The judgment of sentence is VACATED in part and REMANDED for amendment of the written judgment by removing the unpronounced special condition.
JERRY E. SMITH
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE