United States v. Michael Lee Dahms

Good Law
91 Daily Journal DAR 7948·938 F.2d 131·1991 WL 115076·1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 13584·91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5364
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 2, 199190-30269California1,804 words

Opinion

Opinion

Wright, J.

I

In 1975, Michael Dahms pleaded guilty in Michigan state court to assault with attempt to rob while armed and was sentenced to prison. He was released on parole in August 1981 and released from parole in April 1983. In June 1989, while in Montana, he was involved in an aggravated assault, using one of his two shotguns. He was charged with assault in state court and in federal court for being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g)(1). His motion to dismiss the federal indictment was denied and he entered a conditional guilty plea.

Dahms now appeals his federal conviction, arguing that the indictment should have been dismissed because he was not a previously convicted felon as defined in § 921(a)(20). We agree and reverse.

The district court’s decision to deny the motion to dismiss was grounded on its interpretation of the federal statute. We review this interpretation de novo. See United States v. Gomez, 911 F.2d 219 (9th Cir.1990).

II

Title 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g)(1) states that it is unlawful for any person:

18 U.S.C. § 922 (g)(1) (1988). Section 921(a)(20) defines conviction:

18 U.S.C. § 921 (a)(20) (1988).

The first sentence of §…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.