Sixth Circuit Opinion: White v. Howes
On Friday, November 20, 2009, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals published its opinion in White v. Howes, Case No. 08-1458. In White, the court considered whether a defendant’s conviction for both felon in possession of a firearm in violation of MCL § 750.224f, and possession of a firearm during commission of a felony (“felony firearm”) in violation of MCL § 750.227b(1) violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. After his convictions on both counts, the defendant filed a petition for habeas corpus. The Sixth Circuit held that because the Michigan legislature expressly intended to provide two punishments for the same conduct, the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar conviction under both statutes.
The charges against the Petitioner, Thomas White, arise out of a traffic stop in Troy, Michigan. During the stop, the police officer determined that White was driving on a suspended license. He was immediately placed under arrest. After the arrest, the police officer searched White’s car, where he found a loaded shotgun and handgun. White was subsequently charged with felon in possession of a firearm, possession of a firearm during commission of a felony, and driving on a suspended license. White pleaded guilty on February 15, 2005.
White filed a delayed application for leave to appeal to the Michigan Court Appeals, arguing, among other issues, that his conviction for both felon in possession of a firearm and felony firearm violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. The Michigan Court of Appeals denied White’s application for leave to appeal on this issue. Thereafter, White filed a timely application for leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court. The Court denied White’s application as it was not persuaded that that court should review the questions presented.
After exhausting his state court remedies, White filed a petition for habeas corpus with the District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. In his petition, White asserted that his simultaneous convictions under the felon in possession and felony firearm violated the Double Jeopardy Clause, because neither offense required proof of a fact that the other does not. The district court disagreed and held that the Double Jeopardy Clause only prohibits multiple convictions for the same offense, not multiple convictions for the same conduct.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the district court’s conclusion. Specifically, the Sixth Circuit opined that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not prohibit multiple punishments for the same conduct where specifically authorized by the legislature. In this case, the court concluded that the Michigan legislature had specifically intended to include felon in possession as a predicate felony for purposes of the felony firearm statute. Under these circumstances, the court concluded that White’s convictions did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause, and affirmed the district court’s denial of his habeas corpus petition. A copy of the Sixth Circuit’s decision can be found here.