Date: 10-28-2024

Case Style:

United States of America v. Joseph Alan Jenkins

Case Number: 5:22-CR-406

Judge: Russell

Court: United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma (Oklahoma County)

Plaintiff's Attorney: United States District Attorney’s Office in Oklahoma City

Defendant's Attorney:

Click Here For The Best Oklahoma City Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory

Description:

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with felony possession of a firearm.

In August 2022, Mr. Jenkins’s girlfriend reported that he had knocked her
unconscious, kept her locked in their residence, then threatened to kill her and her
family if she spoke to police. When police searched the residence, they found two
guns. Mr. Jenkins was charged in state court with domestic abuse, kidnapping, and
planning or threatening a violent act, Okla. Stat. tit. 21, §§ 644.1, 741, 1378. Those
charges were later dismissed due to a lack of victim cooperation.

In this case, Mr. Jenkins was indicted for a single count under § 922(g)(1) for
possession of the guns found in the residence. He pled guilty without a plea
agreement. A presentence investigation report (PSR) summarized his criminal
history, which included six juvenile adjudications and seven adult convictions. Two
of the convictions were for unlawful firearm possession. In both of those, he was
reported to have used a gun while committing an assault. The PSR calculated an
advisory sentencing range of 30 to 37 months under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines.
Neither party disputed that calculation. The PSR also noted reasons the court might
impose an above-guidelines sentence, including Mr. Jenkins’s criminal history, the
guidelines’ failure to account for the alleged assault and kidnapping, and concerns
with gun possession tied to domestic violence.

In a sentencing memorandum, Mr. Jenkins argued for a sentence at the bottom
of the advisory guidelines range. He emphasized difficulties in his personal history
and argued he had not used the guns underlying the § 922(g)(1) conviction in any
crime, including the alleged assault and kidnapping. In objections to the PSR, he
disputed his girlfriend’s allegations. He also objected to the PSR’s narrative
descriptions of his prior gun convictions and its citation to a report about domestic
violence prepared by the Oklahoma Attorney General’s office.

At sentencing, Mr. Jenkins recognized that the court might impose a
“prolonged” sentence based on his criminal history, R. Vol. 3 at 6, and that it could
also consider the circumstances of the alleged assault and kidnapping. He argued his
criminal history warranted a sentence near the top of the guidelines range but not
above it, given his personal history and the lack of evidence that he had used the guns
underlying his conviction in a crime. The government argued for a sentence at or
above the top of the guidelines range.

The district court imposed a sentence of 72 months. The judge stated he had
considered the PSR, Mr. Jenkins’s memorandum, the parties’ arguments, and the
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. He identified Mr. Jenkins’s criminal history and
dangerousness and the need to protect the public as reasons to impose an
above-guidelines sentence:

I look back at your criminal history, and it’s one that’s replete
with—with violence, drugs, and alcohol, and, of course, that’s what led to
this—this prosecution today.

It’s just fortunate that you’ve never killed anybody. You haven’t,
but I consider you a danger to society, and I think—I agree with the
recommendation from the probation office that an upward variance is
appropriate.

With this in mind, it’s the judgment of the Court the defendant is
committed to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons for a term of 72 months.
Appellate Case: 23-61984

R. Vol. 3 at 10. After advising Mr. Jenkins of his right to appeal and asking for any
requested place of incarceration, the court then recessed without asking if there were
other objections or anything else to address. In the written statement of reasons
accompanying its judgment, the court indicated the upward variance was based on
Mr. Jenkins’s past violence, firearms convictions, and drug and alcohol use, as well
as the need to protect the public.

Mr. Jenkins appealed, arguing his sentence is procedurally unreasonable
because the district court’s explanation was insufficient, and substantively
unreasonable because it is too long.

Outcome: Affirmed

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: