St. Petersburg Criminal Lawyer Blog
Numerous factors can impact sentences issued in firearm cases, including a defendant’s prior convictions. When defendants challenge the application of firearm prohibitions or enhanced penalties under the Armed Career Criminal Act, courts must balance recent decisions against binding precedent and strict standards of review. A recent decision from a Florida court illustrates how unpreserved constitutional and sentencing arguments are analyzed and why timing, prior convictions, and procedural posture can determine the outcome of an appeal. If you are facing federal gun charges or the possibility of an enhanced sentence, it is critical to speak with a St. Petersburg federal criminal defense attorney who can help you protect your rights.
History of the Case
Allegedly, law enforcement officers responded to a call after a witness reported that the defendant had pointed a firearm at his girlfriend and threatened to kill her. Officers located the defendant near multiple firearms, and further investigation revealed that he had previously been convicted of several felony offenses. Based on this conduct, federal authorities charged the defendant with possessing a firearm as a felon.
Reportedly, the defendant entered a guilty plea to the firearm charge. A presentence investigation report was prepared and recommended an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act based on three prior convictions that qualified as violent felonies or serious drug offenses. Without that enhancement, the statutory maximum sentence would have been ten years, but the enhancement increased the mandatory minimum sentence to 15 years.
It is alleged that the qualifying prior offenses consisted of a robbery committed in 2007, a marijuana-related offense committed in July 2014, and an assault involving a firearm committed in September 2014. The defendant was convicted of each offense in separate proceedings. The presentence report treated these convictions as having occurred on different occasions for purposes of applying the sentencing enhancement.
It is reported that the defendant objected to portions of the presentence report but did not object to the absence of a jury finding on whether the prior offenses occurred on different occasions. At sentencing, the district court overruled the objections, determined that the offenses were separate, and imposed the mandatory minimum sentence of 180 months in prison. The defendant appealed both his conviction and sentence.
Sentencing Enhancements in Florida Firearm Cases
On appeal, the court applied plain error review because the defendant had not preserved his constitutional challenges in the district court. Under that standard, the defendant was required to show an error that was clear under existing law and that affected his substantial rights.
The defendant first argued that the federal statute prohibiting firearm possession by felons was unconstitutional as applied to him under recent Supreme Court decisions addressing the Second Amendment. The court rejected this argument, explaining that neither of the cited Supreme Court cases directly held that the statute was unconstitutional when applied to convicted felons. Binding circuit precedent remained in effect and continued to permit disarming felons as a class. Because the district court followed controlling precedent, no plain error occurred, and the conviction stood.
The court next addressed the defendant’s sentencing argument under the Armed Career Criminal Act. While the appeal was pending, the Supreme Court held that a jury must determine whether prior offenses occurred on different occasions unless the defendant admits that fact. The parties agreed that the district court erred by making that determination itself and that the error was plain. The dispute focused on whether the error affected the defendant’s substantial rights.
The court emphasized that the defendant bore a heavy burden to show a reasonable probability that a jury would have concluded that at least two of the prior offenses occurred on the same occasion. Applying factors such as timing, location, and character of the offenses, the court found that the offenses were separated by weeks or years and involved distinct conduct. The significant temporal gap between the 2014 drug offense and the 2014 assault alone strongly indicated separate occasions. The differing nature of the offenses further undermined any argument that they were part of a single criminal episode.
Because the record did not support a reasonable probability of a different outcome, the court held that the sentencing error did not affect the defendant’s substantial rights. The court therefore affirmed both the conviction and the sentence in full.
Confer with a Skilled St. Petersburg Firearm Crime Defense Attorney
Federal firearm charges and sentence enhancements under statutes like the Armed Career Criminal Act can carry severe and lasting consequences. If you are charged with a gun crime, understanding how courts evaluate the evidence against you is critical, and you should talk to an attorney. The knowledgeable St. Petersburg federal criminal defense attorneys at Hanlon Law can evaluate your case, explain your options, and advocate on your behalf at every stage of the process. Contact our St. Petersburg office today at 727-289-0222 or complete our online form to schedule a confidential consultation.