Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/612/305/410196/
Timestamp: 2020-05-28 13:20:58
Document Index: 646189128

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 922', '§ 922', '§ 922', '§ 1202', '§ 922', '§ 922', '§ 922', '§ 922', '§ 1202', '§ 5', '§ 9']

United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Lawrence Johnson, Defendant-appellant, 612 F.2d 305 (7th Cir. 1980) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Seventh Circuit › 1980 › United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Lawrence Johnson, Defendant-appellant
United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Lawrence Johnson, Defendant-appellant, 612 F.2d 305 (7th Cir. 1980)
US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit - 612 F.2d 305 (7th Cir. 1980) Argued Nov. 2, 1979. Decided Jan. 2, 1980
Defendant was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(a) (6) of falsely representing, in connection with the purchase of a firearm, that he had never been convicted of a felony. He had in fact been convicted in an Illinois court of voluntary manslaughter. He contends, however, that the Illinois conviction, which was based on a guilty plea, is constitutionally infirm, and that therefore he cannot be prosecuted under § 922(a) (6) for falsely stating that he had not been convicted. Alternatively, he contends that the judge improperly considered the prior conviction in imposing sentence, and that the case should therefore be remanded for resentencing. We affirm the conviction but vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing.
Five circuits have held that § 922(a) (6) is violated by a denial of conviction of a felony even though the conviction is later claimed or shown to have been unconstitutional. United States v. Graves, 554 F.2d 65, 70-72, 75-76, 79-80 (3d Cir. 1977) (in banc); United States v. Allen, 556 F.2d 720 (4th Cir. 1977); United States v. Ransom, 545 F.2d 481 (5th Cir.), Cert. denied, 434 U.S. 908, 98 S. Ct. 310, 54 L. Ed. 2d 196 (1977); Cassity v. United States, 521 F.2d 1320 (6th Cir. 1975); United States v. Edwards, 568 F.2d 68 (8th Cir. 1977). One circuit has reached the opposite conclusion. United States v. Pricepaul, 540 F.2d 417 (9th Cir. 1976).
If the charge before us were receipt, possession, or transfer of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C.App. § 1202(a) (1), which makes the legality of the conduct dependent on the defendant's status as a convicted felon, reversal would be required by United States v. Lufman, 457 F.2d 165 (7th Cir. 1972). The government concedes that this would also be so if the charge were receipt of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(h) (1) (as it was in a second count in the case at bar, on which the jury found the defendant not guilty).
The same result does not follow, however, when the charge is the making of a false statement under § 922(a) (6). That statute "penalizes (the declarant) not for being a convicted felon, but for failing to tell the truth about the conviction." Cassity v. United States, Supra, 521 F.2d at 1323; See United States v. Graves, supra, 554 F.2d at 70, 75-76, 79-80. Failure to tell the truth about any material matter is "the essence of a § 922(a) (6) violation." United States v. Edwards, supra, 568 F.2d at 70. The distinction requiring different treatment of status and false statement offenses was recognized in Edwards By the Eighth Circuit and in Graves by Judges Garth and Seitz, who concurred with the Third Circuit in banc majority in sustaining a conviction under § 922(a) (6) but, consistent with our Lufman decision, would have reversed a conviction on another count laid under § 1202(a) (1) that had been based on the same prior conviction, 554 F.2d at 83-88.
It does not follow that the district court could properly rely on an invalid prior conviction in sentencing, as it did in this case. We know from Burgett v. Texas, 389 U.S. 109, 115, 88 S. Ct. 258, 262, 19 L. Ed. 2d 319 (1967), that a conviction tainted by denial of counsel in violation of Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S. Ct. 792, 9 L. Ed. 2d 799 (1963), cannot be used "either to support guilt or enhance punishment for another offense." See also United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443, 92 S. Ct. 589, 30 L. Ed. 2d 592 (1972). The same rule applies when the reason the prior conviction is unconstitutional is that it was based on an involuntary guilty plea. United States v. Martinez, 413 F.2d 61 (7th Cir. 1969). But see United States v. Graves, supra, 554 F.2d at 82 n.68. Accordingly, a sentence based in part on a prior conviction invalid because of the involuntariness of the underlying guilty plea cannot stand.
The facts as stated by the prosecutor at the original hearing and by Johnson in his petition to withdraw his plea were plainly insufficient to establish a factual basis for defendant's plea to the crime of voluntary manslaughter. For Johnson to have been guilty under Illinois law of voluntary manslaughter on an accountability theory, he would have had to aid or abet Daniels in the commission of the crime and to have intended to "promote or facilitate such commission."3 Yet the substantive offense of voluntary manslaughter can be committed only when the killer acts either "under a sudden and intense passion resulting from serious provocation," or under a subjective, unreasonable belief that the act is justified by compulsion or is performed in self-defense.4 The mental state of the killer is thus a critical element of voluntary manslaughter under Illinois law, and on the facts of this case that mental state on the part of Daniels could not have existed until immediately before he shot Cephas. It is hardly conceivable, given these facts, that Johnson could have shared Daniels' mental state or contributed to Daniels' decision to shoot Cephas in sudden passion or in self-defense. "Mere presence" or even "negative acquiescence" is not enough under Illinois law to support an accountability conviction. E. g., People v. Morgan, 39 Ill.App.3d 588, 597, 350 N.E.2d 27, 34 (1976), Aff'd, 67 Ill. 2d 1, 7 Ill.Dec. 69, 364 N.E.2d 56, Cert. denied, 434 U.S. 927, 98 S. Ct. 411, 54 L. Ed. 2d 287 (1977). Therefore, even if we assume it is legally possible to be accountable for another's crime of voluntary manslaughter under Illinois law,5 no factual basis to support Johnson's accountability was presented to the state court.
The Constitution does not require the establishment in all cases of a factual basis for a guilty plea, McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 465, 89 S. Ct. 1166, 22 L. Ed. 2d 418 (1969), but it does require that a plea be voluntary, Henderson v. Morgan, 426 U.S. 637, 644-45, 96 S. Ct. 2253, 49 L. Ed. 2d 108 (1976). Failure to establish a factual basis is likely to affect voluntariness. Cf. Carreon v. United States, 578 F.2d 176, 179 (7th Cir. 1978). This is so because some information about the facts is necessary to an assessment of whether the accused understood "the law in relation to the facts," McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. at 466, 89 S. Ct. at 1171, and was able to appreciate "the nature of the charge against him," of which he was entitled to "adequate notice," Henderson v. Morgan, 426 U.S. at 645 n.13, 96 S. Ct. at 2257.
In this case, the lack of a factual basis for the plea, in combination with the inadequacy of the explanation of the law in relation to the facts and the nature of the charge, made the plea involuntary. The state court did not explain to Johnson the nature of accountability or of the crime of voluntary manslaughter, the elements of that crime, or how these matters of law related to the facts of his case. At best, a conclusion that he was guilty of the offense of which he was charged requires an assumption of a most unlikely set of facts. Without having been told what those facts were, he was asked to admit them. While it may be appropriate, as the Court said in Henderson, 426 U.S. at 647, 96 S. Ct. at 2258, "to presume that in most cases defense counsel routinely explain the nature of the offense in sufficient detail to give the accused notice of what he is being asked to admit," such a presumption can hardly be indulged here, where it is impossible to find guilt from the facts stated as the factual basis for the plea.
Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 38, § 5-2(c) (1977) (reprinted in note 1 Supra)
Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 38, § 9-2(a) & (b) (1977) (reprinted in note 2 Supra)