Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Marcus Jones v. United States
Citation: Not availableDocket: 03-2282
Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; April 12, 2005; Federal Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Marcus DeAngelo Jones was convicted of making false statements in acquiring a firearm and two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm, receiving a concurrent sentence of 327 months for the possession charges and 60 months for the false statements charge. His conviction was previously upheld by the Eighth Circuit. After the district court denied his motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, the Eighth Circuit granted him a certificate of appealability to explore whether his trial attorney provided ineffective assistance by failing to challenge the indictment as multiplicitous. The court outlined the two components of an ineffective-assistance claim: the deficiency of counsel's performance and resulting prejudice to the defendant, referencing Strickland v. Washington. It determined that Jones's attorney's failure to challenge the indictment was below an objective standard of reasonableness because an indictment is considered multiplicitous if it charges a single offense in multiple counts, potentially violating the Fifth Amendment's double jeopardy clause. Jones was charged with possessing the same firearm on two separate occasions. The court concluded that continuous possession of the same firearm constitutes a single offense, supporting Jones's assertion that his possession was uninterrupted. The government countered that it could demonstrate Jones's possession was not continuous, suggesting that he knowingly lost and regained possession of the firearm during a traffic stop in August 1999. However, the court found that evidence indicated Jones had informed a police officer about the firearm, which was subsequently returned to him after a check revealed it was not stolen, thus leaning toward the conclusion that the indictment was indeed multiplicitous. Mr. Jones's possession of a firearm was deemed continuous and uninterrupted, with the distinction that constructive possession allows for ownership without physical control. The police officer's temporary seizure of the gun for ownership verification did not alter Mr. Jones's constructive possession, as he retained ownership and control. As a result, charging him with two counts of possession was found to be multiplicitous, constituting a single offense. The legal representation fell below the standard required by the Sixth Amendment due to the failure to challenge the multiplicity of the indictment. Despite the concurrent nature of his sentences, the additional conviction could negatively impact future sentencing and credibility, leading to actual prejudice, including a $100 statutory special assessment. The case is remanded to vacate one conviction and refund any associated fees. Motions to expand the certificate of appealability are denied as moot, and Mr. Jones's motion to amend and remand is also denied, though he may seek further relief in district court.