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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT