United States v. Medley

• Decision Date: 21 August 2020
• Docket Number: No. 18-4789,18-4789
• Citation: 972 F.3d 399
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. Jovon Lovelle MEDLEY, Defendant – Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

972 F.3d 399

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.Jovon Lovelle MEDLEY, Defendant – Appellant.

No. 18-4789

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued: January 29, 2020

Decided: August 21, 2020

ARGUED: Cullen Oakes Macbeth, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Burden Hastings Walker, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Robert K. Hur, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, Christian J. Nauvel, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Thomas M. Sullivan, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, KING, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded with instructions by published opinion. Chief Judge Gregory wrote the opinion, in which Judge King joined. Judge Quattlebaum wrote a dissenting opinion.

GREGORY, Chief Judge:

Jovon Medley was tried on three charges: possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) ; carjacking resulting in serious bodily injury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2119(2) ; and using, carrying, brandishing, and discharging a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii). After a five-day trial, a jury found Medley guilty of the § 922(g) charge but acquitted him of the other two charges related to the carjacking. At sentencing, the district court judge found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Medley used this firearm in connection with the carjacking. Consequently, Medley received a four-level enhancement under the Sentencing Guidelines and was sentenced to 78 months of imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release.

In his initial brief to this Court, Medley raised various Fifth and Sixth Amendment challenges to his conviction and sentence. Then, after the Supreme Court issued Rehaif v. United States , ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 2191, 204 L.Ed.2d 594 (2019), Medley filed a supplemental brief raising further constitutional challenges, arguing that Rehaif invalidates his indictment and conviction. First, Medley claims the Government's failure to allege knowledge of his "relevant status," Rehaif , 139 S. Ct. at 2194, in the charging instrument violated his Fifth Amendment grand jury right and Sixth Amendment notice right. Second, he argues the district court's failure to instruct the jury that it must find the knowledge-of-status element satisfied, and the jury's conviction of Medley when the Government failed to put on sufficient trial evidence relating to this element, violated his Sixth Amendment jury trial right and his right to due process.

This Court has previously addressed Rehaif errors in the context of a guilty plea. See United States v. Gary , 954 F.3d 194, 207 (4th Cir. 2020). But we have not addressed the matter in the context of a trial. Applying plain-error review, we conclude that the asserted Rehaif errors violated Medley's substantial rights. Sustaining Medley's conviction under the present circumstances would deprive Medley of several constitutional protections, prohibit him from ever mounting a defense to the knowledge-of-status element, require inappropriate appellate factfinding, and do serious harm to the judicial process. We thus exercise our discretion to notice the errors. Consequently, we vacate Medley's conviction and remand the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.¹

I.

On December 31, 2016, members of the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department observed Medley standing on a sidewalk with a group of other individuals. As Medley began to distance himself from the group, the officers began to follow him. Medley then increased his speed and ran into a nearby house, passing a resident of the home without speaking to him. The officers stopped as they were trying to enter the premises when they observed a dog coming toward them from inside of the home.

The resident of the home was sitting outside. He initially told the officers that he did not know Medley.² After about five minutes, the dog was contained, and Medley responded to the officers’ calls to exit the house. Medley was immediately placed in handcuffs. The officers then searched the home and recovered a Rock Island Amory .45 caliber semi-automatic handgun ("Rock Island Firearm") and a Glock, model 17, 9mm handgun. They arrested Medley for carrying a firearm without a license, in violation of District of Columbia law. He was ultimately prosecuted for unlawful possession of a firearm, in violation of 22 D.C. Code § 4503(a)(1), based on his possession of the Rock Island Firearm in Washington, D.C. on December 31, 2016. Medley pled guilty to this offense on October 23, 2017, and he was sentenced on December 21, 2017.

On January 23, 2017, Prince George's County Police Department ("PGPD") detectives received a lead from the National Integrated Ballistic Information Network database that linked the shell casings recovered from the scene of a December 30, 2016 carjacking in Prince George's County to the Rock Island Firearm recovered during Medley's arrest. The detectives looked up Medley's D.C. case, discovered he was being held without bond, and traveled to the D.C. jail to interview Medley on January 31, 2017.

During the interview, the detectives advised Medley of his Miranda rights. Despite having counsel appointed to him at the time for his D.C. case, Medley did not alert the detectives that he had counsel; nor did they ask. Medley told the detectives that the Rock Island Firearm was solely in his possession for approximately four days prior to his arrest in D.C. He also stated that he purchased the firearm from an unnamed source in Maryland. He denied any involvement in the carjacking.

On May 8, 2017, a federal grand jury in the District of Maryland returned an indictment charging Medley with one count of carjacking resulting in serious bodily injury, under 18 U.S.C. § 2119(2) ; one count of using and discharging a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii) ; and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The latter alleged that Medley, "having been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, did knowingly and unlawfully possess in and affecting commerce" the Rock Island Firearm. J.A. 4.

Prior to trial, Medley moved to suppress various pieces of evidence, including the statements he made to the PGPD detectives. After a hearing, the district court denied Medley's motions and Medley proceeded to a jury trial, which began on June 18, 2018. The trial concluded on June 22, 2018, and the district court instructed the jury on what it had to find in order to convict Medley of the charges. Relevant here, the district court instructed the jury that it had to find three elements in order to conclude the government sustained its burden of proving Medley guilty of his § 922(g) charge:

First, that the defendant was convicted, in any court, of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, as charged, and that the defendant's civil rights have not been restored following that conviction;

Second, that the defendant knowingly possessed the Rock Island Armory model M1911-A1 .45 caliber semi-automatic firearm, bearing serial number RIA1578527, or the seven cartridges of .45 caliber ammunition, or both, as charged; and

Third, that the possession charged was in or affecting interstate (or foreign) commerce.

J.A. 2654.

The district court then clarified what the jury may consider when determining whether Medley was guilty of this charge. Regarding the first element, the district court instructed the jury that "[t]he parties have stipulated (that is, agreed) that the defendant was convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year," and that this conviction may only be considered "for the fact that it exists." J.A. 2655. The district court directed the jury that it was "not to consider it for any other purpose." J.A. 2655.

With respect to the second element, the district court instructed the jury that it must "find that the defendant knowingly possessed the firearm." J.A. 2656. "This means," the court continued, "that he possessed the firearm purposely and voluntarily, and not by accident or mistake." J.A. 2656. "However," the court continued, "the government is not required to prove that the defendant knew that he was breaking the law." J.A. 2657.

Since the third element, that the firearm was in or affecting interstate commerce, was not disputed, the district court informed the jury of this fact. J.A. 2658.

The jury convicted Medley of the § 922(g) charge but acquitted him of the two charges related to the carjacking. However, at sentencing, the district court judge found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Medley used this firearm in connection with the carjacking. Medley received a four-level enhancement under the Sentencing Guidelines and was sentenced to 78 months of imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release.

Medley timely appealed. He argued that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel by admitting uncounseled statements he made to PGPD detectives after being appointed counsel in another case brought by the same sovereign for the same offense; the district court erred by enhancing his sentence based on a finding that he used the firearm in connection with another felony; and the district court violated his Sixth Amendment right to a jury by sentencing him on the basis of acquitted conduct.

Shortly after the parties briefed this Court on the matters above, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Rehaif v. United States , ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S....