United States v. Gunn ( 1994 )


Menu:
  • USCA1 Opinion












    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT


    ____________________


    No. 93-2060

    UNITED STATES,

    Appellee,

    v.

    BRUCE W. GUNN,

    Defendant, Appellant.


    ____________________

    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

    FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

    [Hon. A. David Mazzone, U.S. District Judge]
    ___________________

    ____________________

    Before

    Cyr, Boudin and Stahl,
    Circuit Judges.
    ______________

    ____________________

    Stephen Neyman on brief for appellant.
    ______________
    Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, and Michael J. Pelgro,
    ________________ _________________
    Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.


    ____________________

    September 13, 1994
    ____________________




















    Per Curiam. Appellant Bruce W. Gunn was convicted by a
    ___________

    jury in February 1993 of knowingly possessing a firearm after

    having been convicted of a felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

    922(g)(1). The sentencing court found that, based upon his

    prior criminal record, Gunn was subject to an enhanced

    sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act [ACCA], 18

    U.S.C. 924(e). He was sentenced to a term of 235 months

    imprisonment and a 60 month period of supervised release.

    Gunn appeals only the enhancement of his sentence pursuant to

    the ACCA.

    I

    At appellant's sentencing hearing, the government

    provided evidence that Gunn had been convicted in Salem

    District Court of three previous offenses which served as

    predicates for the application of the ACCA. Gunn did not

    dispute the existence of these convictions but argued that

    they were constitutionally invalid because they stemmed from

    guilty pleas or admissions to sufficient facts which were

    entered without Gunn's having proper legal representation.

    He also claimed that his convictions arose from guilty plea

    procedures in which the judicial colloquies were defective.

    After a hearing on Gunn's claims, the court found that Gunn

    had been represented by counsel in regard to all three

    predicate convictions. The court further found that Gunn had

    not satisfied his burden of proving that the colloquies were



    -2-















    constitutionally defective. Gunn challenges both findings on

    appeal.

    II

    Gunn claims that his prior convictions cannot serve as

    predicates for an enhancement of his sentence pursuant to the

    ACCA because they resulted from constitutionally defective

    colloquies. However, the Supreme Court, in Custis v. United
    ______ ______

    States, 114 S.Ct. 1732 (1994), held that federal defendants
    ______

    cannot collaterally challenge the constitutionality of their

    prior state court convictions used in sentencing under

    924(e) unless that challenge involves a complete deprivation

    of counsel. Custis, therefore, forecloses Gunn's claim that
    ______

    his convictions should not be used for sentencing because

    they involved constitutionally defective colloquies.1

    III

    Gunn also claims that the record before the sentencing

    court was inadequate to establish that he had been

    represented by counsel at all stages of the state proceedings

    which resulted in his three prior convictions, and, hence,

    that these convictions could not serve as predicate offenses

    under the ACCA. However, after receiving both documentary

    and testimonial evidence, the sentencing court determined

    that the government had met its burden of showing by a



    ____________________

    1. Custis, in effect, overrules this court's holding in
    ______
    United States v. Paleo, 967 F.2d 7, 11-13 (1st Cir. 1992).
    _____________ _____

    -3-















    preponderance of the evidence, United States v. Wright, 873
    _____________ ______

    F.2d 437, 441 (1st Cir. 1989); United States v. Wilkinson,
    ______________ _________

    926 F.2d 22, 28 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1211
    ____ ______

    (1991), that Gunn had been represented by counsel. We review

    this factual finding of the sentencing court for clear error.

    See United States v. Figaro, 935 F.2d 4, 8 (1st Cir. 1991).
    ___ _____________ ______

    At the sentencing hearing, the government presented

    records of the Salem District Court which contained notations

    that Gunn had been appointed counsel in each of the cases

    which resulted in ACCA predicate convictions. The records

    did not indicate that counsel had actually been present

    during all stages of the proceedings in each case. However,

    this court has previously indicated that "a sentencing court

    may permissibly infer from the record of the conviction that

    the conviction was not obtained unconstitutionally provided

    the record contains no reason to believe the contrary."

    Wilkinson, 926 F.2d at 28. In the instant case, testimony
    _________

    was provided by the Clerk Magistrate for the Salem District

    Court that court records ordinarily do not contain a separate

    notation each time court-appointed counsel appears in court.

    The Clerk Magistrate, who had been employed as an assistant

    clerk at the time of the challenged convictions, further

    testified that, according to court practice, counsel was

    required to be in attendance at all stages of the proceedings

    and that state judges would not allow a case to be heard



    -4-















    without the presence of counsel. Since Gunn presented no

    evidence to contradict this testimony, the finding that Gunn

    was represented by counsel at all stages of the state

    proceedings in each of his ACCA predicate convictions cannot

    be characterized as clear error.

    Affirmed.
    ________









































    -5-







Document Info

Docket Number: 93-2060

Filed Date: 9/13/1994

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/21/2015