U.S. v. Bradley

• Decision Date: 11 January 2007
• Docket Number: No. 06-2810.,06-2810.
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cory BRADLEY, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Page 866

473 F.3d 866

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cory BRADLEY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-2810.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: December 15, 2006.

Filed: January 11, 2007.

John M. Lynch, Law Offices of John M. Lynch, St. Charles, MO, for appellant.

Thomas Joseph Mehan, argued, Asst. U.S. Atty., St. Louis, MO, for appellee.

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, JOHN R. GIBSON and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

MURPHY, Circuit Judge.

Cory Bradley was convicted by a jury of possession of a firearm by a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and the district court¹ sentenced him to ninety four months imprisonment. Bradley appeals, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction because the government did not prove that he knowingly possessed a firearm within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).

On August 29, 2004, St. Louis County police officer Chris Ormerod observed a vehicle driving without headlights. Ormerod stopped the vehicle and spoke with the driver, Samella Hogan, and discovered she was driving with only a learner's permit. He then asked Bradley, who was sitting in the passenger seat, if he had a driver license because Hogan was only permitted to drive if she was accompanied by a licensed driver. Bradley replied that he did not have any identification.

Ormerod asked Hogan to step outside the car. While Ormerod was speaking with her, he noticed Bradley lean down and touch the floorboard of the vehicle. Another officer arrived at the scene and stayed near the rear of the vehicle while Ormerod went over to the passenger side to speak with Bradley. Ormerod asked Bradley to get out of the car because he thought he had been trying to hide something. Ormerod asked Bradley whether he was carrying anything illegal. Bradley replied, "I have nothing on me — go ahead and check." Ormerod patted him down, and felt a small plastic bag in his front pants pocket. When he saw Bradley looking over his right shoulder toward the floorboard of the car, Ormerod shined his flashlight on the floorboard and saw the handle of a gun. Ormerod attempted to handcuff Bradley so he could investigate the situation safely, but Bradley pushed him and adopted a fighting stance. Ormerod then grabbed his right wrist, but Bradley resisted and tried to break away. Ormerod told him he was placing him under arrest for assaulting a police officer, and Bradley escaped and fled on foot. The officers ran after him, and Ormerod used a taser to stop him.

After Bradley was placed under arrest, Ormerod returned to the car and seized a fully loaded .38 caliber revolver from under the passenger seat where Bradley had been sitting. A background check from the police vehicle revealed Bradley had two outstanding warrants, and a search incident to Bradley's arrest found marijuana and crack cocaine in his front pants pocket inside a plastic bag. It was later discovered that Bradley had previously been convicted of a felony.

Bradley was indicted on one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm and eventually decided to proceed pro se at trial after the district court declined to appoint a fourth lawyer to represent him, having already removed three prior attorneys at his request. Standby counsel was appointed, and during trial Bradley cross-examined the government's witnesses. In his opening statement and closing argument Bradley told the jury that the government did not prove he knowingly possessed the handgun. The jury found him guilty, however.

On appeal Bradley challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. He argues that the government did not prove that he knowingly possessed the firearm by failing to demonstrate either actual or constructive possession of it. Given the jury verdict in favor of the government, we must draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution. United States v. Davis, 449 F.3d 842, 845 (8th Cir.2006). We will only reverse if no reasonable jury could have found the defendant guilty. United States v. Brave Thunder, 445 F.3d 1062, 1064 (8th Cir. 2006).

The government was required to prove that Bradley had been previously convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment of more than one year, that he knowingly possessed a firearm, and that the...