Background
Vinson Thompson pled guilty in 2018 to possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon. The district court determined he had three previous convictions for serious drug offenses committed on different occasions, qualifying him for an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act. The court sentenced him to 180 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. The Government did not allege the different occasions element in the indictment, and the court did not advise Thompson of his right to have a jury resolve that issue during the guilty plea colloquy.
The court’s reasoning
The court applied the rigorous plain error standard to Thompson’s challenge under Erlinger. It concluded that plain error occurred because the district court resolved the different occasions issue at sentencing without an indictment allegation or jury advisement. However, the court found the error did not affect Thompson’s substantial rights. Thompson was informed of the potential 15-year minimum term, chose to plead guilty, and did not contest the accuracy of the criminal history information in the presentence report. The court also rejected claims of error under Rogers regarding supervised release conditions, finding that the district court sufficiently pronounced standard conditions through incorporation and that the reporting condition was not inconsistent.
What it means going forward
The affirmation maintains the 180-month prison sentence and supervised release term, confirming that defendants who plead guilty with knowledge of potential enhanced sentences may not be able to vacate those sentences even if procedural errors regarding the different occasions element are later identified.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download