U.S. v. Wegrzyn, 00-1712.
| Citation | 305 F.3d 593 |
| Decision Date | 03 October 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 00-1712.,00-1712. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ronald John WEGRZYN, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit) |
v.
Ronald John WEGRZYN, Defendant-Appellee.
Page 594
Timothy P. VerHey (argued and briefed), Asst. U.S. Attorney, Grand Rapids, MI, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Paul L. Nelson (argued and briefed), Federal Public Defenders Office, Grand Rapids, MI, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: DAUGHTREY and MOORE, Circuit Judges; ECONOMUS, District Judge.*
DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judge.
In this appeal by the government, we are asked to resolve what appears to be a misfit between state and federal law involving the regulation of firearms in the possession of persons found guilty of domestic violence. Because we find the dilemma unresolvable in light of the relevant provisions in Michigan law and our cases interpreting them, we are compelled to affirm the judgment of the district court, which held that defendant Ronald Wegrzyn's conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) cannot stand. See United States v. Wegrzyn, 106 F.Supp.2d 959 (W.D.Mich.2000).
The case comes to us in a somewhat unusual procedural posture. Following his arrest for possession of a firearm after previously being convicted for a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, in violation of § 922(g)(9), Wegrzyn agreed to a unique plea arrangement with the federal prosecutors. Because of the existence of "extenuating circumstances" in the case, the parties asked the court to take the defendant's plea of guilty to the weapons charge under advisement for a period of 18 months. Pursuant to the plea bargain, the district judge agreed that he would reject the plea after 18 months if the defendant had complied with all imposed conditions of his release. Furthermore, the government agreed to move at that point for dismissal of the charges against Wegrzyn. Unfortunately, the defendant failed to live up to his end of the bargain and, as a result, the government sought revocation of the grace period and timely sentencing on the underlying offense. Instead of granting the request of the assistant United States attorney, however, the district judge expressed his concern about the legal basis for the firearms conviction and eventually ruled that the federal conviction could not stand. Consequently, the court vacated the guilty plea and ordered Wegrzyn released from custody immediately.
In reaching his conclusion in this matter, the district judge recognized that the statutory provision in § 922(g)(9) that prohibits possession of a firearm by any person "who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" is not absolute. Rather, the court noted, the prohibition is subject to certain limited exceptions listed in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33)(B)(ii), which provides:
A person shall not be considered to have been convicted of such an offense for purposes of this chapter if the conviction has been expunged or set aside, or is an
Page 595
offense for which the person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored (if the law of the applicable jurisdiction provides for the loss of civil rights under such an offense) unless the pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms.
Id. (emphasis added).
Relevant to this appeal is the unusual impact of M.C.L.A. § 168.758b, which strips from misdemeanants their core civil right to vote only "while confined" in a correctional facility.1 Thus, a person confined in Michigan for misdemeanor domestic violence, a crime punishable by incarceration for up to 93 days, see M.C.L.A. § 750.81(2), would have his or her civil rights restored immediately upon release, by operation of law, and would, therefore, be exempt...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Jennings
...at 631. Recently, the Sixth Circuit reached a decision consistent with the First Circuit's decision in Indelicato. In United States v. Wegrzyn, 305 F.3d 593 (6th Cir.2002), the defendant was charged with a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9). Wegrzyn, 305 F.3d at 594-95. The predicate MCDV w......
-
DuPont v. Nashua Police Dep't
......More relevant to interpreting the statute before us is what the First Circuit has recognized as "the rationale behind Congress' use of ‘civil rights ... United States v. Wegrzyn, 305 F.3d 593, 596 (6th Cir.2002) (applying 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33)(B)(ii) ). 167 N.H. 442 The ......
-
In re Parsons
...v. Indelicato, 97 F.3d 627 (1st Cir.1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1140, 117 S.Ct. 1013, 136 L.Ed.2d 890 (1997), and United States v. Wegrzyn, 305 F.3d 593 (6th Cir.2002), in which courts found that one who never loses his or her civil rights should not be treated differently than one who lo......
-
U.S. v. Logan
...231 F.3d 557, 566-67 (9th Cir.2000); United States v. Barnes, 295 F.3d 1354, 1368 (D.C.Cir. 2002). The outlier is United States v. Wegrzyn, 305 F.3d 593 (6th Cir.2002). Persons convicted of domestic-violence misdemeanors in Michigan lose their right to vote only while incarcerated; it is re......