ILNews

7th Circuit: conviction can't enhance sentence

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A defendant's conviction of possession of a firearm by a felon stands because police had reasonable suspicion to stop the car he was riding in, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals concluded today. However, the District Court erred when it enhanced his sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act because his past criminal recklessness conviction isn't considered a violent felony.

In United States of America v. Anthony Hampton, No. 07-3134, Anthony Hampton appealed his conviction and 387-month sentence for his role in a shooting around a Subway restaurant in Indianapolis.

Multiple people called 911 to report hearing gun shots and seeing two men near the restaurant. Anthony Smith told dispatchers that the person later identified as Hampton was holding a gun and he got into a white SUV with Ohio license plates. Smith later testified he recognized Hampton from the neighborhood, but he didn't tell dispatchers that. Police pulled over the white Jeep Commander and found two guns inside, and arrested Hampton and Justin Gray.

The District Court denied Hampton's motion to suppress the chrome revolver recovered in the car, which he was charged with possessing. The District Court also enhanced his sentenced under the ACCA.

The Circuit Court determined police had reasonable suspicion to stop the SUV. Hampton argued that the 911 operators established the reasonable suspicion and that they should have determined Smith had a conviction for falsely reporting a shooting. Police faced an ongoing emergency when responding to Smith's call, and he was presumably more reliable than an anonymous tipster, wrote Judge Ann Claire Williams. He provided enough information for officers to test his knowledge or credibility so as to justify the stop of the SUV.

The Circuit Court rejected his argument that the dispatchers established reasonable suspicion because they received multiple calls about the incident, which they relayed to police, who used that information to determine they had reasonable suspicion, she wrote. In addition, emergency dispatchers are in no position to conduct background checks while gathering information about a crime in progress.

There was also sufficient evidence to determine Hampton had active or constructive possession of the chrome gun. Callers reported to 911 dispatchers that they saw Hampton holding a gun, and one caller testified he saw Hampton put a gun in his waistband before getting into the SUV. It doesn't matter that the other gun recovered was a black gun and witnesses were inconsistent as to whether he had the black or chrome gun in his hand, she wrote.

Hampton challenged that his previous conviction of residential entry wasn't a violent felony for purposes of the ACCA. Using Begay v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 1581 (2008), the Circuit judges ruled residential entry can be considered a violent felony. But, one of Hampton's other prior convictions used to enhance his sentence wouldn't be considered a violent felony - criminal recklessness. The state argued Hampton waived this argument, but the cases determined after he was sentenced have held criminal recklessness wouldn't qualify for the enhancement.

"In light of Begay and its progeny, the district court committed plain error when it enhanced Hampton's sentence based on the determination that criminal recklessness in Indiana constituted a violent felony under the ACCA," she wrote.

Without the criminal reckless conviction, Hampton doesn't have the three required prior violent felony convictions to enhance his sentence. The Circuit judges remanded for re-sentencing.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  2. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

  3. From the article's fourth paragraph: "Her work underscores the blurry lines in Russia between the government and businesses . . ." Obviously, the author of this piece doesn't pay much attention to the "blurry lines" between government and businesses that exist in the United States. And I'm not talking only about Trump's alleged conflicts of interest. When lobbyists for major industries (pharmaceutical, petroleum, insurance, etc) have greater access to this country's elected representatives than do everyday individuals (i.e., voters), then I would say that the lines between government and business in the United States are just as blurry, if not more so, than in Russia.

  4. For some strange reason this story, like many on this ezine that question the powerful, seems to have been released in two formats. Prior format here: http://www.theindianalawyer.com/nominees-selected-for-us-attorney-in-indiana/PARAMS/article/44263 That observed, I must note that it is quite refreshing that denizens of the great unwashed (like me) can be allowed to openly question powerful elitists at ICE MILLER who are on the public dole like Selby. Kudos to those at this ezine who understand that they cannot be mere lapdogs to the powerful and corrupt, lest freedom bleed out. If you wonder why the Senator resisted Selby, consider reading the comments here for a theory: http://www.theindianalawyer.com/nominees-selected-for-us-attorney-in-indiana/PARAMS/article/44263

  5. Why is it a crisis that people want to protect their rights themselves? The courts have a huge bias against people appearing on their own behalf and these judges and lawyers will face their maker one day and answer for their actions.

ADVERTISEMENT