United States v. Brown, No. 10-6458 (6th Cir. Nov. 1, 2011) (unpublished). Panel of Judges Sutton, McKeague, and Jonker (W.D. Mich.) (yes, our own Judge Jonker sat by designation).
Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The Court affirmed.
Facts and Procedural History:
Robbery of home. Police read the defendant his Miranda rights and secured a signed waiver. The defendant confessed he had taken the missing gun. After a grand jury indicted the defendant for being a felon in possession of a firearm, the police questioned the defendant again (first reading the defendant his Miranda rights and again securing a waiver). The defendant's story changed, but at the end of it, he still admitted possessing the missing gun.
Before trial, the defendant sought to suppress the statements. Jury convicted the defendant. But the district court granted the defendant's post-verdict motion for acquittal, finding that the only pieces of evidence linking the defendant to the crime were the defendant's statements: his uncorroborated confessions.
The government appealed, and the Sixth Circuit reversed, finding that sufficient independent evidence corroborated the defendant's statements. On remand, the district court found that the defendant's prior convictions made him an armed career criminal under the ACCA. The district court imposed a below-guidelines sentence of 15 years, the mandatory minimum. The defendant appealed.
Conclusions:
* Corroboration: defendant sought to relitigate the issue of whether sufficient evidence corroborated the confessions. The appellate court, however, found that "that ship has sailed." The Court had decided the issue in the previous appeal; the defendant never sought rehearing; there was no change in controlling authority. The previous decision remains binding.
* Suppression of statements: the defendant's alleged cognitive infirmities and/or possible drug use at the time did not render his waiver of Miranda invalid. Nothing in the record suggested that the defendant did not understand his rights. No coercive police behavior.
* ACCA: defendant qualified as an armed career criminal. The defendant had three prior convictions for aggravated burglary from Tennessee. Application of the ACCA did not offend the Fifth Amendment (due process and equal protection) or the Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual punishment). The Court was clear: "We have seen this movie before, and each time it ends badly for the defendant."
