US v. Mitchell: Police arrived at a rural road and found a car “stopped at a stop sign with the engine running and brake lights on” with “Mitchell in the car, non-responsive and slumped over in the driver seat with a gun in his right hand.” After securing the gun, officers eventually roused Mitchell who, when ordered out of the car simply “stared at them.” When an officer “attempted to forcibly remove Mitchell from the car . . . Mitchell twice punched him in the face.” The officer fell and hit his face. The struggle continued, but Mitchell eventually got out of the car (during which one officer observed “keep in mind he’s incoherent”). Officers found a “small plastic baggie in Mitchell’s pants pockets that contained a white substance,” cocaine. Mitchell pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced to 84 months in prison.
On appeal, a fractured Fourth Circuit vacated his sentence. At issue was a pair of Guideline enhancements – a six-level enhancement for assault of a law enforcement officer that created a serious risk of serious bodily injury and a four-level enhancement for possession of the firearm in connection of another felony offense, possession of cocaine – that boosted Mitchell’s sentence. On the six-level enhancement, Judges Benjamin and Rushing rejected Mitchell’s arguments that the enhancement should not apply – concluding that the district court made sufficient findings, that there was sufficient evidence of assault, that Mitchell knowingly struck a law enforcement officer, and that his action created a substantial risk of serious bodily injury (although no actual injury occurred). On the four-level enhancement, Judges Benjamin and Keenan agreed that the district court did not make sufficient findings to support the conclusion that the firearm facilitated or had the potential to facilitate the possession of the cocaine. They distinguished this case from Jenkins, where there were specific findings as to how the firearm in that case facilitated drug possession.
Judge Rushing filed a separate opinion concurring and dissenting in parts, arguing that there was sufficient evidence to support the four-level enhancement. Judge Keenan also filed a separate opinion concurring and dissenting, arguing that the six-level enhancement suffered from the same flaw as the four-level one, that the district court had not sufficiently identified the basis for its application.
Congrats on the EDNC Defender office on the victory!
No comments:
Post a Comment