Court Opinion

ID: 9466085
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 01:05:22.737776+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:39:32.292599
License: Public Domain

ELY, Circuit Judge
(concurring):
I reluctantly concur, and I concur only because of the compulsion of the precedent within our own Circuit. See United States v. Bergeman, 592 F.2d 533 (9th Cir. 1979); United States v. Locke, 542 F.2d 800 (9th Cir. 1976). I feel compelled, however, to reiterate my belief that we should respect a state’s right to define and determine when an individual has been convicted under the state’s law. See Kelly v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 349 F.2d 473, 474-80 (9th Cir. 1965) (Ely, J., dissenting). Under the “principle” of national uniformity in the application of federal law, we have unnecessarily and unjustifiably intruded upon a sovereign right that, as I see it, appropriately belongs to the states.
Benson was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(h)(1).1 That statute’s interpretation is governed by 18 U.S.C. § 927, a statute reflecting the clear intent of Congress not to intrude into areas traditionally reserved to the states:
No provision of this chapter shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of the Congress to occupy the field in which such provision operates to the exclusion of the law of any State on the same subject matter, unless there is a direct and positive conflict between such provision and the law of the State so that the two cannot be reconciled or consistently stand together.
Both the federal and state laws concern the subject of an individual “convicted” of a crime. There is, however, no “direct and positive conflict” between the federal and state statutes such that the statutes “cannot be reconciled or consistently stand together.” The Illinois statutes define when a person stands “convicted” of a state crime for purposes of future disabilities and treatment. Although the concept of “conviction” is a key element of 18 U.S.C. *1096§ 922(h)(1), that statute does not define the term. It is well settled that “unless Congress conveys its purposes clearly, it will not be deemed to have significantly changed the federal-state balance.” United States v. Bass, 404 U.S. 336, 349, 92 S.Ct. 515, 523, 30 L.Ed.2d 488, 497 (1971). Thus, in the absence of a clear Congressional intent to the contrary, we ought to look to the state definition of conviction in applying § 922(h)(1) when the prior “conviction” was one of state law. See United States v. Bergeman, 592 F.2d 533, 538-42 (9th Cir. 1979) (Takasugi, J., dissenting). See also Holland, Conviction Defined, 40 J.State Bar of Calif. 36 (1965).
In the circumstances of this case, the District Court found that Benson was prosecuted under § 410 of the Illinois Food and Drug law — a deferred prosecution statute. See Majority Opinion, note 2. Assuming this to be correct, the Illinois court never did enter a judgment of conviction against Benson. During the oral argument of this case, the Assistant United States Attorney, representing the Government, conceded that this was true. Thus, this situation should be distinguished from one arising under an expunction statute wherein a judgment of conviction is entered and later “erased”. As I long ago wrote, however, I still hold that when a state conviction is expunged by the state, there is' no “conviction”. Judge Holland’s comments, supra, reflect the deep resentment that all state court judges hold because of our decisions upon which the majority rely. I entertain the same resentment, believing that ■ we have officiously and wrongly usurped a state power.
It has been argued that adoption of state definitions, including expunction or deferred prosecution provisions, would lead to an uneven application of federal law, dependent upon the “vagaries” of state law. See, e. g., Garcia-Gonzales v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 344 F.2d 804 (9th Cir. 1965). Yet, there can be no uniformity since, according to the very language of § 922(h)(1), a person is within the scope of the statute only when convicted “in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.” Because the states are generally free to define the elements of a crime and to determine the penalty, the length of the statutory sentence for a specific crime may and often does vary among the several states. Thus, an individual in one state who has committed a crime may find that he is within the ambit of § 922(h)(1) while a person who committed the identical crime in another state may not be within the scope of the federal statute, it is more than troubling, therefore, to hold that these state systems of sentencing comport with a theory of national uniformity while state expunction or deferred prosecution statutes must be ignored because “the application of federal criminal sanctions would depend solely upon where the defendant’s previous conviction had occurred.” United States v. Bergeman, supra, 592 F.2d at 537. See id. at 542 (Takasugi, J., dissenting); Kelly v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, supra, 349 F.2d at 475.
Deferred prosecution statutes, like ex-punction statutes, are based upon important policy concerns. The states enact these laws to deter recidivism and to promote the full rehabilitation of their citizens. In each case, the state has chosen to allow an individual familiar with the specific circumstances — the trial judge — to determine what criminal and civil sanctions should attach. See Conviction Defined, supra. Federal intrusion into this area wrongly impinges upon the states’ power and right to fashion and pioneer effective rehabilitation programs. That intrusion “significantly change[s] the federal-state balance”, United States v. Bass, supra, 404 U.S. at 349, 92 S.Ct. at 523, despite a clear Congressional intent to the contrary. 18 U.S.C. § 927. Because we respect a state’s law insofar as defining the crime and sentence, we err in not according the states “the same respect in the application of its statute or of its decisions in the interpretation of the effect of a subsequent procedure taken under a [state] statute . . . .” Kelly v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, supra, 349 F.2d at 475.

. 18 U.S.C. § 922(h)(1) provides:
(h) It shall be unlawful for any person— (1) who is under indictment for, or who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
Benson’s “receipt” of the firearm occurred shortly after he commenced work as a security guard in Nevada. His employer advised that Benson must carry a firearm as part of his regulation dress. Because Benson did not have a gun, he borrowed the firearm from a fellow security guard who worked a different shift. Benson’s use of the gun was solely for his security-guard work. The firearm was always returned to its owner after Benson’s shift was over.