United States v. Wilson
| Decision Date | 04 January 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 19-1055,19-1055 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JEREMY JAVAN WILSON, Defendant - Appellant. THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER FOR THE DISTRICTS OF COLORADO AND WYOMING, Amicus Curiae. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
(D. Colo.)
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*Before HOLMES, MATHESON, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.
Defendant-Appellant Jeremy Javan Wilson appeals his conviction of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and his subsequent sentence of sixty-three months' imprisonment. First, he challenges the constitutional validity of his guilty plea, asserting that he was not advised of the true nature of the charge. In this regard, Mr. Wilson claims that the district court erred by accepting his guilty plea to the § 922(g)(1) offense without advising him of a requisite offense element—specifically, that he must have knowledge at the time of the firearm possession of his felon status, as the Supreme Court required in Rehaif v. United States, --- U.S. ---, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019). Second, Mr. Wilson appeals his sentence of sixty-three months' imprisonment on the grounds that it is procedurally and substantively unreasonable. He argues that the district court failed to properly consider his mental-health issues in its application of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and, relatedly, did not adequately explain the basis for its sentencing decision.
Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742, we reject Mr. Wilson's arguments and affirm the district court's judgment.
On November 9, 2019, Mr. Wilson pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm while a felon—a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). At the time he entered his plea, the law of this circuit required the government to prove three elements tosecure his conviction under § 922(g)(1): (1) that Mr. Wilson had previously been convicted of a felony; (2) that Mr. Wilson thereafter knowingly possessed a firearm or ammunition; and (3) that the possession was in or affecting interstate commerce. See, e.g., United States v. Silva, 889 F.3d 704, 711 (10th Cir. 2018) (citing United States v. Benford, 875 F.3d 1007, 1015 (10th Cir. 2017)).
Consistent with then-extant law, Mr. Wilson admitted to the following elements of § 922(g)(1) in his plea agreement:
R., Vol. I, at 25 (Plea Agreement, filed Nov. 9, 2018). The parties agreed to recommend to the court a three-point reduction in the offense level for acceptance of responsibility, and they agreed to request from the court a sentence of sixty-three months' imprisonment. In addition, the plea agreement stated, "[t]he parties agree that there is no dispute as to the material elements which establish a factual basis of the offense of conviction." Id. at 26.
At the change of plea hearing, Mr. Wilson detailed his mental-health and medical history. He informed the court that he has been "diagnosed with PTSD [i.e., Post Traumatic Stress Disorder], bipolar [disorder], [and] manic[depression]." Id., Vol. III, at 11 (Change of Plea Hr'g Tr., dated Nov. 9, 2018). He also discussed a head injury that he suffered in 2009 and detailed the year in which each mental-health-related diagnosis occurred.1 The court then inquired whether he had been taking psychiatric medications since being in custody and about the presence of any ongoing mental-health and medical issues.
While acknowledging the persistence of his depression, Mr. Wilson denied taking any psychiatric medications. He also explained he was "able to focus on [the plea agreement] without some of those [depressive] symptoms . . . interfering with [his] ability to understand." Id. at 13. When the court inquired as to whether Mr. Wilson's counsel observed signs of "Mr. Wilson not being able to understand the nature of the proceedings due to what . . . could be some type of psychiatric issue," Mr. Wilson's counsel definitively responded in the negative, stating: "Never at all." Id. at 15.
Mr. Wilson entered his guilty plea, after testifying that he had read the agreement, spoken with his counsel, and understood the charge. In accepting his plea, the court found that Mr. Wilson is Id. at 26. And the court accepted Mr. Wilson's plea and adjudged him guilty of the § 922(g)(1) offense.
With a total offense level of seventeen and a criminal history category of VI, the probation officer calculated Mr. Wilson's advisory U.S. Sentencing Guidelines range to be fifty-one to sixty-three months' imprisonment. Id., Vol. II, at 71 (Sent'g Recommendation, filed Jan. 23, 2019). In the Presentence Investigation Report ("PSR"),2 the probation officer noted, "the defendant knows he is not permitted to be in possession of firearms, but continues to possess them, even while under supervision." Id. at 73. The probation officer also noted that Mr. Wilson had a prior state-court conviction for possession of a weapon by a previous offender, and while on parole, he committed the instant offense. Id. In that prior case, Mr. Wilson "admitted to [an] undercover officer that he did not like meeting at a public place to sell firearms due to being a convicted felon." Id.
Two addendums were included with the PSR prior to sentencing. Particularly relevant to Mr. Wilson's arguments on appeal is the second addendum—a brief two-page document, filed shortly before sentencing, that contained certain additional information regarding Mr. Wilson's mental-healthhistory, including a "patient report" from Mr. Wilson's admission to the emergency room on May 5, 2010. Id., Vol. II, at 77 (Second Add. to PSR, filed Jan. 30, 2019) (the "Second Addendum"). Apparently in connection with this admission, Mr. Wilson was diagnosed as having a mood disorder (not otherwise specified) and antisocial personality traits. The Second Addendum also referenced records indicating that a physician at the halfway house where Mr. Wilson resided had diagnosed him with bipolar disorder and PTSD. The Second Addendum also mentioned Mr. Wilson had a Global Assessment of Function ("GAF") score of 45.3
At sentencing, the district court noted that the parties did not object to either the sentencing recommendation or the PSR. The district court mentioned the recent filing of the Second Addendum and commented that it did not appear to have "anything material in it." Id., Vol. III, at 33 (Sent'g Hr'g Tr., dated Feb. 1, 2019). Defense counsel agreed. Id. (); id. ().
The court then applied the statutory factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Without objection from the parties, the court adopted the factual findings and Guidelines applications in the PSR as the court's findings of fact concerning sentencing. Id. at 42. The court then spoke about Mr. Wilson's background—describing his troubled upbringing, his "broken home," and other "tragedies" that he had suffered. Id. at 42-43. The court also noted his history of head trauma and, in particular, the 2009 head injury. The court explained, "there hasn't been a great diagnosis of what potential effects [Mr. Wilson] might have from some of these head injuries." Id. at 43. As a result, the court "strongly urge[d] Mr. Wilson, while he is in custody, to see whether he can get some medical services related to figuring out whether there is any type of brain injury." Id. After discussing his criminal history, the court then sentenced Mr. Wilson to sixty-three months' imprisonment—consistent with Mr. Wilson's request. Id. at 46.
The district court entered judgment on February 5, 2019, and Mr. Wilson filed a timely notice of appeal.
We now consider Mr. Wilson's arguments on appeal. He first challenges the constitutional validity of his guilty plea, asserting that he was not advised of the true nature of the charge. In this regard, Mr. Wilson contends that the districtcourt erred by accepting his guilty plea to the § 922(g)(1) charge because the court failed to advise him of the requisite Rehaif element—that is, his knowledge of his prohibited status, as a felon, at the time of the firearm possession. Specifically, approximately four months after the district court entered its final judgment, the Court in Rehaif held that to obtain a conviction "under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) . . . the Government must prove both that the defendant knew he possessed a firearm and that he knew he belonged to the relevant category of persons barred from possessing a firearm." Rehaif, 139 S. Ct. at 2200 (emphasis added).4
And, second, Mr. Wilson appeals his sentence of sixty-three months' imprisonment on the grounds that it is procedurally and substantively unreasonable. He argues that the district court failed to properly consider his mental-health issues in its application of the § 3553(a) factors and, relatedly, that it did not adequately explain the basis for his sentence. In particular, Mr. Wilson asserts that his mental illnesses were only "superficially recognized by the court" and that "the [c]ourt failed to address his diagnosis of head trauma and bipolarillness and PTSD." Aplt.'s Opening Br. at 16. We consider Mr. Wilson's two challenges in turn.
Mr. Wilson first attacks the validity of his conviction. Id. at...
To continue reading
Request your trial