United States v. Artis , 132 F. App'x 483 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 04-4879
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    ANDRE A. ARTIS,
    Defendant -     Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
    District Judge. (CR-04-85)
    Submitted:   May 6, 2005                      Decided:   May 27, 2005
    Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Frank W. Dunham, Jr., Federal Public Defender, Paul G. Gill,
    Assistant Federal Public Defender, Richmond, Virginia, for
    Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Vince Gambale,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Stephen W. Miller, Assistant
    United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Andre A. Artis appeals his conviction for possession of
    a firearm after having been convicted of a felony, and having been
    convicted     of   domestic   violence,    in    violation     of   
    18 U.S.C. §§ 922
    (g)(1), (9) (2000).
    Artis first contends that the district court erred by
    granting the Government’s motion in limine to prevent a collateral
    attack on his domestic violence conviction from being presented to
    the jury.      Whether a prior misdemeanor conviction for domestic
    violence qualifies as a predicate offense pursuant to 
    18 U.S.C. § 922
    (a)(33)(B)(i)(II) (2000) is a question of law for the court to
    decide.   See United States v. Bethurum, 
    343 F.3d 712
    , 716 (5th Cir.
    2003); United States v. Akins, 
    276 F.3d 1141
    , 1146 (9th Cir. 2002)
    ("Because     §    921(a)(33)(B)(i)(I)    is    a   legal    definition,   its
    application presents a question of law to be decided by the trial
    judge."); United States v. Smith, 
    171 F.3d 617
    , 621-22 (8th Cir.
    1999) (concluding, as a matter of law, that a particular conviction
    and   waiver        of   rights   satisfied         the     requirements    of
    § 922(a)(33)(B)(i)).      Accordingly, we hold that the district court
    did not err by granting the Government’s motion in limine to
    prevent the issue from going to the jury.
    Artis also contends that the district court erroneously
    concluded that his prior conviction for domestic violence qualified
    as a predicate offense for the purposes of § 922(g)(9).              Title 18
    - 2 -
    U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) (2000) provides that it shall be unlawful for a
    person who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime
    of domestic violence (“MCDV”) to possess a firearm.        However,
    pursuant to 
    18 U.S.C. § 921
    (a)(33)(B) (2000), a person shall not be
    considered to have been convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence
    unless, among other things, “the person, if he was entitled to a
    jury trial in the MCDV case under the laws of the jurisdiction in
    which the MCDV case was tried, . . . knowingly and intelligently
    waived the right to have the [MCDV] case tried by a jury, by guilty
    plea or otherwise.   United States v. Jennings, 
    323 F.3d 263
    , 265
    (4th Cir. 2003) (internal citations and quotations mark omitted);
    
    18 U.S.C. § 921
    (a)(33)(B) (2000).
    It is undisputed that in 2003, Artis entered a guilty
    plea in Juvenile & Domestic Relations District Court of Virginia
    (“J&DR court”) to one count of misdemeanor domestic violence.
    Under Virginia law, a defendant appearing before a J&DR court has
    no right to a jury trial in that court.   Such a right exists only
    where the defendant exercises his right to appeal the judgment to
    a Virginia Circuit Court.   Va. Sup. Ct. R. 3A:13(a).   Accordingly,
    we hold that Artis did not have a right to a jury trial in J&DR
    court, and that he did not invoke his right to a jury trial in a
    Circuit Court of Appeals because he failed to file a notice of
    appeal.   We therefore agree with the district court’s conclusion
    - 3 -
    that Artis was not entitled to a jury trial as a matter of law.
    Jennings, 
    323 F.3d at 265
    .
    Finally,     Artis      contends       that       his        uncorroborated
    confession to possession of the firearm was insufficient to sustain
    his conviction under § 922(g)(1).               “The verdict of a jury must be
    sustained if there is substantial evidence, taking the view most
    favorable to the Government, to support it.” See Glasser v. United
    States,   
    315 U.S. 60
    ,   80   (1942).        “[S]ubstantial           evidence    is
    evidence that a reasonable finder of fact could accept as adequate
    and sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s guilt
    beyond a reasonable doubt.”          United States v. Burgos, 
    94 F.3d 849
    ,
    862 (4th Cir. 1996).
    “[A]n   accused        may    not     be     convicted        on   his    own
    uncorroborated confession,” Smith v. United States, 
    348 U.S. 147
    ,
    152 (1954), or inculpatory admissions. Opper v. United States, 
    348 U.S. 84
    , 91 (1954).      See also United States v. Hall, 
    396 F.2d 841
    ,
    844-45    (4th   Cir.    1968).          There    must    also      be    “substantial
    independent      evidence     which       would        tend   to     establish        the
    trustworthiness of the statement.” Opper, 
    348 U.S. at 93
    ; see also
    United States v. Bryce, 
    208 F.3d 346
    , 354 (2d Cir. 1999); United
    States v. Chimal, 
    976 F.2d 608
    , 611 (10th Cir. 1992).                                 The
    corroborating evidence is adequate if it “supports the essential
    facts admitted sufficiently to justify a jury inference of their
    truth.”   Opper, 
    348 U.S. at 93
    .           Viewing the evidence in the light
    - 4 -
    most favorable to the Government, we conclude that the evidence is
    sufficient to sustain Artis’ conviction for violating § 922(g)(1).
    Glasser, 
    315 U.S. at 80
    .
    We find Artis’ remaining claims to be without merit and
    affirm his conviction and sentence. We dispense with oral argument
    because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
    the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
    decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    - 5 -