Articles Posted in Weapons Offenses

Recently, a defendant in Virginia appealed his firearm convictions by arguing that the trial court should not have allowed evidence of a 911 call to be part of the Commonwealth’s case. According to the defendant, the call was not properly authenticated, and thus it was improperly admitted. Disagreeing with the defendant, the higher court denied the appeal and kept the original convictions in place.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant’s ex-girlfriend called 911 one day in November 2020 to report that the defendant had fired a shot outside her house. The ex-girlfriend said that the defendant had used a silver and brown-looking gun and that he had shot at her car approximately two minutes before the call. The ex-girlfriend also reported that the defendant had been convicted of felonies in the past, as well as that he was angry because the pair had recently broken up.

Eventually, police officers were able to track down the defendant at a nearby hotel. The officers saw the defendant’s car and noticed a live round of ammunition in the driver’s seat. They also seized a backpack that the defendant had been carrying, in which they found a few live .25 caliber rounds.

Continue Reading ›

In a recent opinion on a Virginia firearms case coming out of a Virginia appeals court, the defendant appealed his conviction of possession of a firearm after conviction of a nonviolent felony. On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence found during a 2019 search of his vehicle. The defendant claimed that Code §4.1-1302(A), which took effect in 2021, applied retroactively and rendered the evidence seized in 2019 inadmissible as evidence against him in his 2021 trial. Examining the evidence, the court of appeals disagreed, and affirmed the original conviction.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, on November 15, 2019, an officer of the City of Newport News Police Department stopped a sports utility vehicle because it had an expired registration. The defendant was the sole occupant of the vehicle, and while speaking with the defendant, the officer noticed the odor of marijuana coming from the car. Based on the odor of marijuana, the officer performed a search of the vehicle and subsequently found a revolver. The defendant admitted that the revolver was his. As the defendant had a prior conviction for possession of cocaine, he was then arrested on a warrant charging him with possession of a firearm after conviction of a nonviolent felony. He was indicted for the offense in 2020.

In August 2021, the defendant filed a pretrial motion to suppress evidence. He asserted that a new statutory provision, which had taken effect earlier in 2021, rendered the search of his vehicle due solely to the odor of marijuana unlawful and, consequently, rendered the firearm and his related statements inadmissible at trial. The defendant argued that the new law was procedural and therefore applied retroactively. The trial court held that the statute was not retroactive and denied the motion to suppress. Following the court’s decision, the defendant entered a conditional guilty plea reserving his right to appeal the suppression ruling. The court found the defendant guilty and sentenced him to five years in prison with three years suspended.

Continue Reading ›

In a recent appellate opinion in a Virginia firearms criminal case, the Commonwealth of Virginia appealed a decision by the trial court to grant the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized from a vehicle in which he was a passenger. On appeal, the Commonwealth argued that the trial court erred in granting the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized during a 2020 search of a vehicle the defendant was in. The Commonwealth claimed that the vehicle’s search was legal because it was supported by probable cause. Examining the facts of the case, the court of appeals disagreed, and affirmed the decision of the trial court.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, on July 6, 2020, a Virginia Beach Police officer was on patrol when he heard gunshots and saw a car speeding away from the location of the shots. The officer stopped the vehicle to identify the driver and the passenger, who is the defendant. While speaking with them, the officer noticed a brown cigarette that he believed to contain marijuana. There was no marijuana smell, and the officer did not examine the cigarette or field-test it. He told the defendant that he found what he believed was marijuana, and the defendant responded that he would “take the charge.” The officer advised them that if he did not find any other marijuana in the car, he would not charge them with possession of the drug.

The officer told other officers at the scene that he wanted to search the car for weapons. However, he advised the driver and the defendant that he was searching for more marijuana. The driver did not consent to the officer’s request to search the car. The officer then obtained the key to the locked glove compartment and discovered a handgun. The defendant was charged with possession of a firearm by a felon.

Continue Reading ›

In a recent case coming out of a Virginia court, the defendant appealed his conviction for possession of ammunition by a felon. On appeal, the defendant argued that the officer that came into his house and found the ammunition did not actually have the right to be in his home, and thus that the evidence should have been suppressed. Looking at the totality of the circumstances in the case, the court of appeals disagreed and affirmed the defendant’s conviction.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was charged with assault and battery after physically and verbally abusing his wife. He was arrested because of the charges, and his wife called the officers investigating the crime to let them know that the defendant had ammunition in their home. Because the defendant had previously been convicted of felonies, possession of ammunition was a violation of Virginia law.

The officer that spoke with the defendant’s wife obtained a search warrant and came to the couple’s home. The officer showed the wife his warrant, and the wife said that he could come in and search the house. The officer subsequently found a box of ammunition in the defendant’s closet, and the defendant was charged with possession of ammunition by a felon. The defendant moved to suppress the evidence of the ammunition, and the trial court denied his motion.

Continue Reading ›

In a recent case coming out of a southeastern federal court, the defendant’s appeal of his 100-month prison sentence was denied. According to the defendant, the lower court had imposed a sentence that was too harsh, and it was only fair for the higher court to reevaluate the sentence to more accurately reflect the crime that the defendant committed. Ultimately, the court disagreed, and the defendant’s original sentence was affirmed.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, in 2016, the defendant in this case somehow acquired counterfeit twenty-dollar bills. He used these bills to purchase a weapon – specifically, a Ruger 9mm pistol along with ammunition. He was later indicted on two counts: (1) possession of a firearm and ammunition and (2) passing counterfeit money. Of note, the defendant in this case had been convicted of felonies in the past, meaning he could potentially face harsher consequences for the 2016 crime given his criminal history.

The Decision

The court sentenced the defendant to 100 months in prison and three years of supervised release. On appeal, the defendant argued that his sentence was too harsh and that the criterion that the probation officer used to sentence him was the incorrect standard for the officer to be using. In the sentencing hearing, the probation officer advised the court that it should increase the defendant’s sentence because of a law stating that if a defendant “used or possessed any firearm or ammunition in connection with another felony offense,” that defendant’s prison time should be longer than it would be otherwise.

Continue Reading ›

In a recent firearms case coming out of a Virginia court, the defendant’s appeal of his guilty verdict was denied. Originally, the defendant was convicted of possessing a firearm under the age of twenty-nine after having been convicted of a delinquent act that would be a felony if committed by an adult. Because he had been previously convicted as a juvenile, the defendant was prohibited from having a gun, thus the court found that he had possessed the firearm illegally. On appeal, the defendant argued there was not enough evidence to prove that he had been previously convicted. The court disagreed, ultimately affirming the guilty verdict.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was arrested in 2020 for a separate crime. When the police officer searched the defendant after arresting him, the officer found a firearm tucked into the waistband of the defendant’s pants. The officer checked the gun’s serial number, ran it through his system, and discovered that the firearm had been reported stolen earlier that day.

At the defendant’s trial, the Commonwealth of Virginia provided evidence that as a juvenile, the defendant had been found guilty of a crime that would have been considered a felony if it was committed by an adult. Under Virginia law, it is illegal for a person fitting into this category to possess any firearm. The defendant was then convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted non-violent felon.

Continue Reading ›

In a recent case coming out of a Virginia court, the defendant failed to successfully appeal his conviction of firearm possession. Originally, a trial court found that the defendant knowingly possessed a 9-mm handgun in his bedroom; on appeal, the defendant argued that he had no idea the handgun was actually on his bedroom floor. Given the facts of the case, the court disagreed with the defendant and affirmed his guilty conviction.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant in this case had been previously convicted of statutory burglary, a crime that made it illegal for him to knowingly possess any firearm or ammunition for a firearm. One day, in late 2020, three police officers came to the defendant’s home when they received reports regarding a potential assault by the defendant on his girlfriend. The defendant’s girlfriend, who lived with him in the apartment, consented to the police searching the residence when they arrived.

Upon searching the defendant’s room, one of the officers found a box of 9-mm ammunition on top of the dresser, in plain view from the doorway. The officer also found competitive-fighting paraphernalia, men’s clothing that led her to believe the defendant was actively living in the room, and a 9-mm pistol sitting on the floor.

Continue Reading ›

In a recent firearm case coming out of a federal court in the southeast of the United States, the defendant’s appeal was successful. According to the defendant, the sentence he faced for a firearm offense was unnecessarily long, and the court should have calculated his incarceration time differently. The higher court agreed with the defendant, concluding that his sentence was incorrectly calculated and that the case should go back to the lower court so that the court could calculate the defendant’s sentence again.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was charged with one count of knowingly possessing a firearm and ammunition. Instead of taking this case to trial, the defendant pled guilty and attended a sentencing hearing, in which a United States Probation Office would determine how long the defendant would face incarceration due to this crime.

At this hearing, the defendant learned that he qualified for a mandatory minimum sentence because of a federal law called the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”). This Act makes defendants in firearms cases face longer sentences if they have been convicted of certain other crimes at least three times. In this case, the defendant had been previously convicted three times with possession of marijuana. Specifically, he had possessed marijuana with intent to distribute in the proximity of a school. Because of these convictions, the Probation Office made his sentence longer than it would have been otherwise by referencing the ACCA.

Continue Reading ›