Supreme Court Verdict Upholds 27-Year Sentence of Man Convicted for Possession of a Firearm

47

In a recent decision on Thursday, the Supreme Court denied a man the opportunity to contest his conviction on firearm charges, which had been challenged following a related high court decision.

The six-to-three majority ruling came from the court’s conservative justices against Marcus DeAngelo Jones. Jones had received a 27-year sentence for contravening a federal law aimed at preventing individuals with previous criminal convictions from owning guns.

Jones had maintained that the 2019 court ruling, which stated that prosecutors must provide evidence that individuals violating federal gun laws were aware of their prohibition from owning firearms, warranted a reassessment of his conviction.

After the 2019 verdict, Jones attempted to revisit his case, but was denied by a federal appeals court. The crux of his case was a technical, albeit significant, issue concerning the timing at which defendants are permitted to present their claims in court, rather than the particulars of Jones’ case.

Justice Clarence Thomas, authoring the court’s majority opinion, stated that those who have exhausted their appeal opportunities cannot return to court “solely on a more favorable interpretation of statutory law adopted after his conviction became final.”

According to Thomas, a second opportunity to appeal under a 1996 federal law designed to limit federal appeals is only granted under two circumstances: the emergence of new evidence or a new interpretation of a constitutional provision by the court.

While most federal appeals courts would have permitted Jones to retry his case, Thomas reasoned that these decisions would bypass the 1996 law, known as AEDPA.

The three dissenting liberal justices opined that this ruling leads to “bizarre outcomes” and “disturbing results.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson highlighted that this ruling, in combination with recent restrictions on appeals set by the court, has mutated “a statute that Congress designed to provide for a rational and orderly process of federal postconviction judicial review into an aimless and chaotic exercise in futility.”

In 2000, Jones was convicted for illegal possession of a firearm as a felon. His attorneys claimed that Jones believed his record had been expunged and that he was no longer barred from owning a firearm.

The case is known as Jones v. Hendrix, 21-857.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about Supreme Court firearms verdict

More about Supreme Court firearms verdict

• Supreme Court Rulings
• Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA)
• Understanding Federal Gun Laws
• Jones v. Hendrix Case Summary