Early one
morning, Joey Wiseman woke to the sound of someone attempting to break into his
apartment. Using his video surveillance system, Wiseman discovered that
the individual was armed with a handgun Wiseman, who was armed himself, encountered the assailant, knocked the
gun out of his hand, and then shot him. With his would-be robber bleeding on his
living room floor, Wiseman, who was a convicted felon, faced a difficult
choice: should he first call 9-1-1 or hide both the gun and the multiple grams
of cocaine that were in his apartment? He chose the later. After
hiding the cocaine and gun in a safe in his car, Wiseman called 9-1-1. In
a subsequent interview, however, Wiseman admitted to the police that he hid the
handgun and cocaine in his car, and the police subsequently seized both items
after obtaining a search warrant.
A federal grand
jury subsequently indicted Wiseman for two counts of possession with intent to
distribute cocaine and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm
and ammunition. In addition, the Government filed an 851 notice that
Wiseman had prior felony drug convictions it would rely upon in enhancing his
maximum sentence from twenty to thirty years pursuant to 21 U.S.C. §§
841(b)(1)(C).
A jury
subsequently convicted Wiseman of all three counts. The District Court,
after finding that he was a career offender, sentenced Wiseman to 262 months
imprisonment.
On appeal,
Wiseman turned to the First Step Act as a basis for many of his arguments. First he challenged the enhancement of his sentence, arguing that he was not
eligible for the sentencing enhancement under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(C) and
851(a) because he had not committed any "serious drug felonies" as
defined under the First Step Act. He also argued that the
District Court erred in denying his request for a justification instruction and
in overruling his objection to testimony during his trial from a special agent
that he had received "a call from Adult Parole Authority."
Finally, citing the First Step Act, Wiseman argued the District Court erred in finding he was a career
offender under the Guidelines because he had served less than a year
imprisonment on each of his supposedly qualifying charges.
In its decision
in United States v. Wiseman, the Court rejected all of
Wiseman's arguments and affirmed both his conviction and sentence. First,
the Court held that the First Step Act, which became effective after his
conviction, was not retroactive, and, even if it was, it did not alter the
language for qualifying convictions under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C).
The Court also
concluded that the District Court properly rejected Wiseman's request for a
justification instruction. Wiseman, the Court noted, failed to show that
he was justified in possessing the firearm because he possessed it long before
he saw the would-be robber enter his home. In addition, the Court noted
that Wiseman continued possessing the gun after the danger had passed by
placing the weapon in a safe before the police arrived.
The Court
similarly rejected Wiseman's challenge to the admission of the special agent's
testimony implying that he was on parole status. The jury, the Court
concluded, was already well aware that Wiseman had a prior felony conviction
because he had been charged under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and because he had
stipulated prior to trial that he had felony convictions. The Court thus
held that any error was harmless.
Finally,
in challenging the District Court's finding that he was a career offender,
Wiseman argued that the District Court should have considered the definition of
a "serious drug felony" under the First Step Act in its
analysis. The Court disagreed and noted that the Act did not alter the
definition of offenses that qualify for career offender status under the Guidelines.
Less than a year into its implementation, courts are still addressing the scope of the First Step Act. We will no doubt continue to see cases like this one addressing creative arguments under the Act.