United States v. Johnnie Haynes, No. 22-1284 (8th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
After a three-day trial, a jury convicted Defendant of being a felon in possession of a firearm and, in a separate count, of being a felon in possession of ammunition, following a shooting in north Minneapolis. The district court imposed concurrent 115-month sentences on each count. Defendant appealed, arguing that there was insufficient evidence of the interstate commerce element of the firearm offense, insufficient evidence of possession of ammunition and that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The government’s appeal brief noted that the two counts are multiplicitous and should have been merged for sentencing purposes.
The Eighth Circuit agreed the firearm and ammunition convictions are multiplicitous as submitted to the jury. Therefore, one must be vacated to eliminate plain error prejudice, the two $100 special assessments. The court otherwise affirmed. The court reasoned in these circumstances, it was plain error not to merge the two counts for sentencing purposes, and the appropriate remedy is to remand with directions to vacate one of the multiplicitous convictions. The court left to the district court which of the two counts to vacate. The court wrote it does not require full resentencing or a new trial.
Court Description: [Loken, Author, with Erickson and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and Sentencing. The evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm; the court properly left to the jury the question of whether the firearm had traveled in interstate commerce, and the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict that it had; with respect to defendant's conviction for being a felon in possession of ammunition, the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict; defendant's within-guidelines range sentence was substantively reasonable; defendant possessed and used the firearm and ammunition in a single incident of possession, and the counts were multiplicitous; the proper remedy in these circumstances is to remand with directions to vacate one of the convictions; a full resentencing or new trial are not required.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.