Appeals Court uses armed NC felon’s case to highlight basic judicial rule

The 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals used the case of an armed felon Friday to highlight a larger issue involving challenges to trial judges’ decisions.

A unanimous three-judge appellate panel upheld a 66-month prison sentence for Jerone Tyrell Holman. He was convicted in a North Carolina federal court of possession of a firearm and ammunition by a felon.

Authorities arrested Holman in 2023 after he crashed his car “around two in the morning,” according to the 4th Circuit opinion. Holman admitted that he had been drinking. Authorities at the scene found a loaded handgun that had been reported stolen, along with a second magazine of ammunition.

Appellate judges rejected Holman’s Second Amendment arguments against his conviction. They also determined that the sentence handed down by US District Judge William Osteen was reasonable.

“The court observed that because Holman had chosen to pick up a gun with a large capacity magazine and carry it while driving drunk at two in the morning, his self-defense narrative was ‘not a very compelling’ one,” Judge Harvie Wilkinson wrote for the 4th Circuit.  “‘You want to protect yourself from those people who shouldn’t be carrying guns around,’ the court told him, ‘but you’re one of the people that shouldn’t be carrying guns around.’ In light of this consideration, Holman’s sentence is procedurally reasonable.”

“Each of Holman’s arguments is, at bottom, an attack on the United States government’s ability to control crime,” Wilkinson concluded. “In the system he envisions, Congress would not be able to prohibit violent felons from possessing guns, and the Sentencing Commission would not be able to consider whether a magazine contains more than 15 rounds when determining an appropriate punishment.”

“Fortunately, that is not our system. Because the Constitution and the rule of law permit the government to do both, the judgment of the district court is affirmed,” Wilkinson wrote.

Wilkinson devoted much of his 21-page opinion to discussing the “plain error” standard of review. Courts employ that review if an appeal raises an issue that did not prompt an objection during a trial.

In Holman’s case, the 4th Circuit applied the plain-error review to his challenge of sentencing guidelines linked to the amount of ammunition involved in his case.

“At the foundation of our plain error analysis lies the contemporaneous objection rule,” Wilkinson wrote. “When ‘a litigant believes that an error has occurred (to his detriment) during a federal judicial proceeding, he must object in order to preserve the issue.’  ‘No procedural principle’ — or procedural rule — ‘is more familiar.’”

“Contemporaneous objections serve many salutary functions,” Wilkinson added. “If a district court agrees with a claim of error raised in an objection, it may remedy the error immediately and thereby ‘avoid the delay and expense of a full appeal.’ If the court disagrees with the claim of error, it may at least create a record that will facilitate effective appellate review. In either case, the trial judge is given the opportunity to apply his instincts to the question. His familiarity with the proceedings in front of him makes him the most practiced and informed decisionmaker.”

“Forfeiture is the rule’s enforcement mechanism,” the judge continued. Without an objection, the litigant usually loses the right to raise the issue in an appeal.

“The threat of forfeiture keeps counsel ‘on his toes,’ motivating him to object to any potential errors,” Wilkinson wrote. “It also deters counsel from strategically remaining quiet and then raising an objection only if his client loses the case, a tactic known as ‘sandbagging.’ And it furthers finality, that underappreciated virtue on which the stability of our judicial system relies.”

The rule also “presents risks,” Wilkinson admitted. “One risk is that counsel will act like a jack-in-the-box, jumping to his feet with objections more often than is necessary. This kind of lawyering disserves the client and ‘completely disrupts the rhythm of the proceedings.’”

“Another more serious risk is the possibility of grave injustice,” Wilkinson wrote. “In the heat of trial, counsel cannot be expected to lodge objections with the thoughtfulness and precision he could bring to a written brief. He might on occasion, for no reason other than a lapse of attention, fail to object to an error that really matters. If courts of appeals were too ‘rigid and undeviating’ about forfeiture, and we ‘invariably and under all circumstances decline[d] to consider’ claims of error not raised below, there would be no way to correct the rare but all too real ‘miscarriage of justice.’”

A federal rule of criminal procedure — 52(b) — offers an exception  for addressing “plain error that affects substantial rights,” the opinion explained. “By authorizing a limited exception to our standard practice for ‘particularly egregious errors,’ Rule 52(b) preserves the benefits of the contemporaneous objection rule while minimizing its attendant risks.”

A 1993 US Supreme Court precedent called United States v. Olano offers a four-prong test to determine whether a new issue can be raised successfully during an appeal.

“Holman’s effort fails at the first prong,” Wilkinson wrote. “There was no error in the proceedings here.”

Appeals Court Judge Henry Floyd and US District Judge David Novak of Virginia joined Wilkinson’s opinion.

“Appeals Court uses armed NC felon’s case to highlight basic judicial rule” was originally published on www.carolinajournal.com.