Opinion ID: 585053
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Issue Raised in Response to Anders Brief

Text: 9 Hatcher pursues the improper enhancement issue in his response to the Anders brief. Insisting that his appeal is meritorious, he describes his situation as very similar to United States v. Traxel, 914 F.2d 119 (8th Cir.1990) (statute with prospective effect did not retroactively limit restoration of appellant's civil rights). He notes that Wisconsin fully restored rights circumscribed by his prior convictions. Since § 921(a)(20) 1 exempts from consideration under § 924(e)(1) any prior violent felony convictions for which a person's civil rights were restored, Hatcher seems to suggest that he does not have the three prior convictions necessary to sustain the mandatory minimum sentence of fifteen years applicable to anyone who violates § 922(g). 10 But in this approach he is tilting at windmills. Insofar as Wisconsin law forbids convicted felons from possessing a firearm regardless of whether they have regained other civil rights, Hatcher is mistaken that the state granted full restoration of the rights he forfeited upon earlier convictions. WIS.STAT. § 941.29 (1989-90). See also United States v. Ziegenhagen, 776 F.Supp. 441, 449 (W.D.Wis.1991), appeal docketed, No. 91-3516 (7th Cir. Oct. 31, 1991). Moreover, the statute applies retroactively. See Wis.Laws ch. 141, § 2 (1981); Ziegenhagen, 776 F.Supp. at 449. This court held in United States v. Erwin, 902 F.2d 510 (7th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 161 (1990) (construing Illinois law), that a person prohibited from possessing weapons under state law remains a convicted felon even though other civil rights may have been restored. 2 As a result, the prior convictions for which Hatcher claims he regained his civil rights in fact continued to operate as convictions with respect to the prohibition on weapons acquisition and possession. The government therefore could use these convictions for sentence enhancement. 11 After reviewing the sentencing transcript, we conclude that the district court properly imposed the mandatory sentence of fifteen years. Our review reveals no other issues upon which we could base a reversal of Hatcher's sentence. 12 For the foregoing reasons, attorney Bittorf's motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and this appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. Hatcher's response urging withdrawal of the Anders brief and appointment of new counsel is DENIED as moot.