Presley v. U.S., 87-2590
Decision Date | 12 July 1988 |
Docket Number | No. 87-2590,87-2590 |
Citation | 851 F.2d 1052 |
Parties | Otto PRESLEY, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
James E. Brown, Asst. Federal Public Defender, Kansas City, Mo., for appellant.
K. Preston Dean, Kansas City, Mo., for appellee.
Before ARNOLD, Circuit Judge, FLOYD R. GIBSON and HENLEY, Senior Circuit Judges.
Otto Presley was indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. Secs. 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(1)(B), and entered a conditional guilty plea, see Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(a)(2), that reserved his right to appeal the issue he raises here. The District Court 1 accepted the conditional plea and sentenced Presley to three years' probation and a special assessment of $50.00.
The federal law prohibiting possession of firearms by felons was amended in 1986 by the Firearms Owners' Protection Act, P.L. 99-308, 100 Stat. 449, and the question presented is whether the felony conviction alleged in the indictment is a conviction as that term is presently defined in the Act. The Act states:
What constitutes a conviction of [a felony] shall be determined in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction in which the proceedings were held. Any conviction which has been expunged, or set aside or for which a person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored shall not be considered a conviction for purposes of this chapter, unless such pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms.
18 U.S.C. Sec. 921(a)(20).
At the time of the alleged crime, Presley had completed his sentence for the felony conviction charged in the indictment. A Missouri statute passed in 1977 (which, the Missouri courts have held, repealed earlier inconsistent laws) provides, in pertinent part, that there is no legal disqualification or disability on account of a criminal conviction, except as provided by statute. Mo.Ann.Stat. Sec. 561.016. This, Presley argues, automatically restored his civil rights upon release from custody, and therefore excludes his conviction from the scope of the Act. The government responds that several other Missouri statutes passed, amended, or reenacted since 1977 have imposed legal disabilities on convicted felons, see Mo.Ann.Stat. Secs. 561.026(3) ( ), 494.020 (same), 57.010 ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
U.S. v. Caron, Criminal No. 94-10040-WGY.
...970 F.2d 1472, 1478-79 (6th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1083, 113 S.Ct. 1056, 122 L.Ed.2d 362 (1993); Presley v. United States, 851 F.2d 1052, 1053 (8th Cir. 1988); Berger v. United States, 867 F.Supp. 424, 427 The government's reliance is misplaced. In Essig, the Third Circuit held ......
-
US v. Erwin
...has no relevance to any of the three issues in this case. United States v. Presley, 667 F.Supp. 678 (W.D.Mo.1987), aff'd, 851 F.2d 1052 (8th Cir.1988), is likewise unhelpful. There the defendant's civil rights were expressly preserved in spite of his state conviction, with the exceptions th......
-
U.S. v. Estrella
...States v. Cassidy, 899 F.2d 543, 549 (6th Cir.1990); United States v. McKinley, 23 F.3d 181, 183 (7th Cir.1994); Presley v. United States, 851 F.2d 1052, 1053 (8th Cir.1988).2 Compare Driscoll, 970 F.2d at 1480, and United States v. Burns, 934 F.2d 1157, 1160 (10th Cir.1991), cert. denied, ......
-
U.S. v. Brown
...civil rights, Brown has not been restored to sufficient civil rights in order to invoke section 921(a)(20). See Presley v. United States, 851 F.2d 1052, 1053 (8th Cir.1988); United States v. Williams, 128 F.3d 1128, 1134 (7th Cir.1997) (applying Missouri law); United States v. Meeks, 987 F.......