Summary
The Tenth Circuit held that a predicate misdemeanor need not include a domestic relationship as an express element to qualify as a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9). The court concluded that the domestic relationship must instead be charged and proven as part of the § 922(g)(9) offense, and affirmed the defendant's conviction and sentence.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the predicate misdemeanor offense for a prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) must itself contain a domestic-relationship element.
- Whether the absence of a domestic-relationship element in Utah's simple-assault statute rendered Heckenliable's guilty plea constitutionally invalid or deprived the plea of a sufficient factual basis.
Holdings
- A predicate misdemeanor need not have the domestic relationship between perpetrator and victim as an element of the underlying offense. The domestic relationship must be charged and proven as part of the § 922(g)(9) violation, while the predicate misdemeanor need only have, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force or threatened use of a deadly weapon.
- The guilty plea was not invalid on the asserted ground, and the absence of a domestic-relationship element in Utah's simple-assault statute did not defeat the factual basis for the § 922(g)(9) plea.
Key quotations
“Properly construed, a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" requires the domestic relationship element to be charged and proven as an element of a § 922(g)(9) violation, not as an element of the underlying misdemeanor.” (446 F.3d at 1050)
“Under [Defendant's] construction, the Congress remedied one disparity — between felony and misdemeanor domestic violence convictions — while at the same time creating a new disparity among (and sometimes, within) states.” (446 F.3d at 1050-51)
Factual background
Heckenliable had previously pleaded guilty to simple assault under Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-102. Utah's simple-assault statute did not include a domestic-relationship element. He later pleaded guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) based on that conviction, and the district court sentenced him to fifty-seven months' imprisonment.
Procedural history
Heckenliable pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm after having been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. The district court rejected his statutory argument in ruling on a motion in limine and sentenced him to fifty-seven months' imprisonment. The Tenth Circuit exercised jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, reviewed the statutory interpretation issue de novo, and affirmed.