Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02801/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02801-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Willie Johnson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2801

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Willie Johnson, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 5, 2005

 Filed: May 10, 2005

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Willie Johnson (Johnson) appeals the sentence the district court1

 imposed for

a felon-in-possession offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). After the court

accepted Johnson’s guilty plea, the government gave notice of its intent to enhance

Johnson’s sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), listing

five prior Missouri state convictions for second-degree burglary, all of which also

were noted in the presentence investigation report (PSR). See 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)

Appellate Case: 04-2801 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/10/2005 Entry ID: 1901037
-2-

(stating any defendant who violates § 922(g) and has 3 prior convictions for violent

felony or serious drug offenses must be imprisoned for not less than 15 years). 

At the sentencing hearing, the district court adopted the PSR but expressed

concern that Johnson had entered his guilty plea believing he was subject to a 10-year

maximum rather than a 15-year mandatory minimum prison term; the court offered

that Johnson could either withdraw his guilty plea or plead guilty a second time and

face a 15-year prison term. After Johnson expressed frustration with the situation, the

court postponed the hearing to allow the court and parties to research how sentencing

should proceed. At a subsequent hearing held three weeks later, the district court

again asked Johnson to choose whether he wished to withdraw his guilty plea or to

proceed with sentencing knowing he was subject to a 15-year prison term; Johnson

responded, “Yes. Proceed with it, Judge.” The court then sentenced Johnson to 180

months (15 years) in prison and 3 years supervised release. 

Johnson’s counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing Johnson’s sentence violates his due process

and equal protection rights, because Johnson was not given notice that he was subject

to an enhanced sentence under section 924(e). Johnson has filed a pro se

supplemental brief, arguing the district court plainly erred under Blakely v.

Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), in classifying him as an armed career criminal,

because a jury should have decided whether his prior convictions were violent

felonies.

These arguments fail. Johnson’s sentence does not violate his due process or

equal protection rights, because the PSR referenced the convictions underlying his

classification as an armed career criminal and Johnson did not object to these facts,

and Congress had a rational basis for requiring enhanced sentences for those with

three prior convictions for violent felonies. See United States v. Bates, 77 F.3d 1101,

1105-06 (8th Cir. 1996) (rejecting due process argument), United States v. Woodall,

Appellate Case: 04-2801 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/10/2005 Entry ID: 1901037
-3-

120 F.3d 880, 882 (8th Cir. 1997) (rejecting equal protection argument). Also,

Johnson’s sentence does not implicate United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005).

See United States v. Painter, 400 F.3d 1111, 1111 (8th Cir. 2005) (holding, because

section 924(e) sentence was mandated by statute, it was free of error under Booker).

Having carefully reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80

(1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2801 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/10/2005 Entry ID: 1901037