ILNews

7th Circuit upholds conviction

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a defendant's conviction and sentence for selling a firearm to a felon, ruling the wording of his indictment did not require the government to prove he knew about the gun buyer's past convictions.

In U.S.A. v. Dwayne Haskins, No.06-1438, Haskins was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. 922(d) after selling a firearm to co-worker Darryl Eller, who was a convicted felon. Eller cooperated with federal agents after police arrested him as a felon in possession and confiscated his gun after an incident at work. Police inadvertently returned the gun to Haskins, who worked as a security guard with Eller at a bar. Haskins then told Eller he would sell the gun back to Eller.

Eller worked with police and was wired during phone calls with Haskins about purchasing the gun. Haskins was arrested and told an ATF agent he knew Eller had been in some trouble but didn't know if he had been in prison. At trial, Eller testified Haskins and other co-workers knew he was a convicted felon.

Haskins appealed his conviction and sentence of 18 months, arguing there was insufficient evidence, his sentence was too harsh, and the government and District Court amended his indictment. Specifically, Haskins argued the government had to prove he knew Eller was a felon and knew of the particular felony referred to in the indictment. Haskins relied on United States v. Willoughby, 27 F.3d 263 (7th Cir. 1994), in which the court reversed a conviction where the defendant's indictment for using a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking crime specified a particular drug trafficking crime. That indictment stated the crime as distribution of cocaine, but the government only proved at trial a connection between the defendant's use of a firearm and possession of cocaine.

In Haskins' case, the indictment specified Eller's 1993 felony conviction and did not narrow the description of charges against Haskins or his knowledge of Eller being a felon. Judge Ilana Diamond Rovner described Eller's felony conviction information as "superfluous background information" that the government doesn't need to prove.

Haskins also argued his conviction should be reversed because there was insufficient evidence to prove he knew Eller had been convicted of a felony. Judge Rovner wrote Eller's testimony that Haskins knew he was a felon, Haskins' comment to ATF agents that he knew Eller was a felon "the first time I saw him", and his conversation with Eller before and during the sale of the gun all prove he knew Eller was a felon.

Haskins believed his sentence to be unreasonable, arguing a mitigating factor was used against him in sentencing and the judge relied on improper and irrelevant factors when sentencing him. Haskins told the court he had been shot by a felon 14 years ago but was not given the opportunity at trial to explain why his victim status justified a lower sentence. The District Court deemed this incident as irrelevant to his current crime, wrote Judge Rovner. The circuit judges found the District Court gave "meaningful consideration" to sentencing factors found in 18 U.S.C. 3553 and affirmed Haskins' conviction and sentence.

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. Bob Leonard killed two people named Jennifer and Dion Longworth. There were no Smiths involved.

  2. Being on this journey from the beginning has convinced me the justice system really doesn't care about the welfare of the child. The trial court judge knew the child belonged with the mother. The father having total disregard for the rules of the court. Not only did this cost the mother and child valuable time together but thousands in legal fees. When the child was with the father the mother paid her child support. When the child was finally with the right parent somehow the father got away without having to pay one penny of child support. He had to be in control. Since he withheld all information regarding the child's welfare he put her in harms way. Mother took the child to the doctor when she got sick and was totally embarrassed she knew nothing regarding the medical information especially the allergies, The mother texted the father (from the doctors office) and he replied call his attorney. To me this doesn't seem like a concerned father. Seeing the child upset when she had to go back to the father. What upset me the most was finding out the child sleeps with him. Sometimes in the nude. Maybe I don't understand all the rules of the law but I thought this was also morally wrong. A concerned parent would allow the child to finish the school year. Say goodbye to her friends. It saddens me to know the child will not have contact with the sisters, aunts, uncles and the 87 year old grandfather. He didn't allow it before. Only the mother is allowed to talk to the child. I don't think now will be any different. I hope the decision the courts made would've been the same one if this was a member of their family. Someday this child will end up in therapy if allowed to remain with the father.

  3. Ok attorney Straw ... if that be a good idea ... And I am not saying it is ... but if it were ... would that be ripe prior to her suffering an embarrassing remand from the Seventh? Seems more than a tad premature here soldier. One putting on the armor should not boast liked one taking it off.

  4. The judge thinks that she is so cute to deny jurisdiction, but without jurisdiction, she loses her immunity. She did not give me any due process hearing or any discovery, like the Middlesex case provided for that lawyer. Because she has refused to protect me and she has no immunity because she rejected jurisdiction, I am now suing her in her district.

  5. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

ADVERTISEMENT