Opinion ID: 655939
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: 18 Lopez argues that the government did not introduce sufficient evidence to prove that he was a felon. Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), the government is required to show that the defendant has been convicted of a felony punishable by imprisonment for more than one year. However, Lopez does not deny that he was a felon. Moreover, the government introduced sufficient evidence to show that he was. Michael Casto, a California Department of Corrections parole agent, testified that he was Lopez's parole agent and that Lopez must have been a felon because, under California law, only persons convicted of felony offenses are subject to parole. Casto's testimony was unrebutted. 19 Lopez next argues that even if the evidence sufficed to show that he was a felon, which it did, that is not enough to sustain his conviction. He argues that the government must prove that he was convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and that proof of his status as a convicted felon is insufficient to discharge that burden. 20 Lopez's argument fails. Under California law all felonies are punishable by incarceration for more than one year. See Cal.Penal Code § 18 (West 1988) (Except in cases where a different punishment is prescribed by any law of this state, every offense declared to be a felony, ... is punishable by imprisonment in any of the state prisons for 16 months, or two or three years....). 21 Finally, Lopez argues that because the government set forth in the indictment four specific felonies of which he allegedly had been convicted, the government was obligated to provide specific evidence of at least one of those felonies. We reject the argument. The specific offenses constitute surplusage. The material fact in the indictment is that Lopez had been convicted of a felony. Thus, the government was not required to prove one of the specific felonies charged in the indictment. Although the government is required to prove that the defendant has been convicted of a felony, it is not required to prove that he has been convicted of a specific felony. Lopez does not deny that he was aware of the charge against him--the charge that he had been convicted of a felony. Nor does he contend or show that the government's method of proving the prior felony constituted a surprise, that he was unprepared to rebut the showing, or that he was in any other way prejudiced by the government's proof. See United States v. Smith, 919 F.2d 67, 69 (8th Cir.1990) (finding no error where the manner in which the government proved that the defendant was a felon did not prejudice the defendant).