United States v. Watkins Brown ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •            Case: 18-13806   Date Filed: 07/26/2019   Page: 1 of 6
    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    ________________________
    No. 18-13806
    Non-Argument Calendar
    ________________________
    D.C. Docket No. 4:18-cr-00019-CDL-MSH-1
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    WATKINS BROWN,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Middle District of Georgia
    ________________________
    (July 26, 2019)
    Before WILLIAM PRYOR, MARTIN, and GRANT, Circuit Judges:
    PER CURIAM:
    Case: 18-13806       Date Filed: 07/26/2019       Page: 2 of 6
    Watkins Brown appeals his jury conviction for possession of a firearm by a
    convicted felon. Brown argues the evidence introduced at trial was insufficient as
    a matter of law to support his conviction. After careful review, we affirm.
    I.
    In April 2018, Brown was indicted with one count of possession of a firearm
    by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).1 In June 2018, he
    proceeded to trial by jury. The evidence presented at trial showed that on
    September 5, 2017, federal, state, and local law enforcement officers were
    patrolling neighborhoods in Columbus, Georgia. These patrols were part of
    Operation Safe Streets, a Department of Justice initiative aimed at preventing and
    decreasing violent crimes. Also part of this operation was for officers to arrest
    people who had outstanding warrants.
    Sometime between about 9:30 and 10:30 p.m. that night, Georgia
    Department of Community Supervision Officers Tranisha Reid and Cedric
    Montgomery drove to Brown’s home to arrest him for violating his probation.
    When the officers arrived, Brown was standing in his driveway with a young man
    whom the officers believed to be a minor. The officers stepped out of their
    vehicle, and Brown asked who was there. After Officer Reid announced her name
    1
    Brown was also indicted with one count of possession of a stolen firearm in violation
    of 18 U.S.C. § 922(j), but the government dismissed that charge before the start of his trial.
    2
    Case: 18-13806    Date Filed: 07/26/2019   Page: 3 of 6
    and the officers told him they had a warrant for Brown’s arrest, he grew “fidgety.”
    Suspecting Brown might flee, Officer Reid yelled, “Don’t run.” Immediately,
    Brown ran a short distance and attempted to jump a nearby fence into a
    neighboring yard.
    Officer Montgomery pursued Brown, caught up to him, and tased him as he
    was going over the fence. When Brown hit the ground and attempted to roll over,
    Officer Montgomery saw “a black revolver c[o]me out of his waist area” and
    “land[] on his side.” Officer Montgomery told Brown not to move and yelled
    “[g]un, gun,” to alert Officer Reid. With the assistance of other officers who had
    arrived on the scene, Officers Reid and Montgomery secured Brown and the
    weapon. Officer Reid testified that it was dark out that night. But Officer
    Montgomery said when he saw the weapon fall from Brown’s waist, he could
    clearly see Brown and “everything in [the] immediate area” using a flashlight from
    his Taser.
    Demetrius McDowell testified in Brown’s defense. McDowell said he was
    the person standing in the driveway with Brown when police arrived. McDowell
    recounted that before the officers arrived at Brown’s home, he saw what he
    believed to be law enforcement vehicles, got scared, and threw a gun over the
    fence. McDowell identified the gun at issue in this case as the one he threw.
    McDowell also said Brown never possessed the gun and did not know it was in
    3
    Case: 18-13806     Date Filed: 07/26/2019    Page: 4 of 6
    McDowell’s possession. McDowell testified that before trial he had not reported
    his possession of the gun to the police or anyone else out of fear he would be
    prosecuted.
    Before Brown’s case was submitted to the jury, the parties stipulated he had
    been convicted of a prior felony and the subject firearm had been shipped and
    transported in interstate commerce. After deliberating, the jury found Brown
    guilty of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The district court later
    sentenced Brown to 103-months imprisonment and three years of supervised
    release. This is Brown’s appeal.
    II.
    Brown argues the district court erred in denying his motion for judgment of
    acquittal because the evidence at trial was insufficient as a matter of law to support
    his conviction.
    We review de novo a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. United
    States v. Gamory, 
    635 F.3d 480
    , 497 (11th Cir. 2011). “We view the evidence in
    the light most favorable to the government, making all reasonable inferences and
    credibility choices in the government’s favor.” 
    Id. (quotation marks
    omitted and
    alteration adopted). “We will not overturn a conviction on the grounds of
    insufficient evidence unless no rational trier of fact could have found the essential
    4
    Case: 18-13806     Date Filed: 07/26/2019   Page: 5 of 6
    elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Wright, 
    392 F.3d 1269
    , 1273 (11th Cir. 2004) (quotation marks omitted).
    A conviction under § 922(g)(1) requires that a jury find: (1) the defendant
    was a convicted felon; (2) he knowingly possessed a firearm; and (3) the firearm
    traveled in or affected interstate commerce. 
    Id. Brown stipulated,
    and does not
    now dispute, that he is a convicted felon and that the subject firearm traveled in
    interstate commerce. Thus, the only issue on appeal is whether there was enough
    evidence for a jury to find Brown knowingly possessed the firearm.
    Possession in the context of § 922(g)(1) may be proved either by showing
    the defendant actually or constructively possessed a firearm. United States v.
    Pedro, 
    999 F.2d 497
    , 500 (11th Cir. 1993). “To prove actual possession the
    evidence must show that the defendant either had physical possession of or
    personal dominion over the firearm.” United States v. Vereen, 
    920 F.3d 1300
    ,
    1310 (11th Cir. 2019) (quotation marks omitted and alteration adopted).
    “Possession can be shown by circumstantial as well as direct evidence.” 
    Wright, 392 F.3d at 1273
    .
    Officer Montgomery testified he saw “a black revolver c[o]me out of
    [Brown’s] waist” and “land[] on his side.” Based on this testimony, a rational trier
    of fact could find Brown knowingly possessed the firearm. Brown argues Officer
    Montgomery did not see the firearm in his hands, but the government is not
    5
    Case: 18-13806     Date Filed: 07/26/2019    Page: 6 of 6
    required to show evidence of a defendant holding a weapon in order to show he
    possessed it. See 
    Vereen, 920 F.3d at 1310
    . Brown also says “the yard was a dark
    and dimly li[t] area,” which he contends “would have made it hard or impossible to
    see.” However, Officer Montgomery testified he could clearly see Brown and
    “everything in [the] immediate area” using a flashlight from his Taser. Finally,
    Brown says McDowell’s testimony showed who “actually possessed the firearm.”
    But the fact that a witness testified that he, not Brown, possessed the weapon does
    not mean there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict. “Assessing
    the credibility of one witness is within the jury’s exclusive province, and all
    reasonable inferences and credibility choices must be in favor of the jury verdict.”
    
    Wright, 392 F.3d at 1274
    . Based on the verdict, it seems the jury did not credit
    McDowell’s testimony. We conclude the evidence at trial was sufficient to convict
    Brown under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
    AFFIRMED.
    6
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-13806

Filed Date: 7/26/2019

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 7/26/2019