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. 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