United States v. Stepp
Document: 010110973955 (2023)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Constructive possession of contraband in a jointly occupied premises can be established by circumstantial evidence demonstrating a nexus between the defendant and the item, indicating knowledge, access, and intent to control. A district court's factual finding regarding the end date of a prior incarceration, relevant for sentencing guidelines, is reviewed for clear error and upheld if supported by a preponderance of the evidence in the record.
Facts:
- On February 7, 2021, police officers and paramedics responded to a call for a gunshot victim and found Justin Stepp with a wounded leg in the passenger seat of a car driven by his girlfriend, Stefanie Ratliff.
- Deputy Holder observed a small, holstered handgun in plain view in the car’s center console, between the driver and passenger seats, and seized it.
- A later search of the vehicle recovered two rounds of .22 caliber ammunition from under the front passenger seat.
- After paramedics transported Justin Stepp to a hospital, Deputy Holder drove Stefanie Ratliff to a Quality Inn.
- Deputies Gardner and Roane proceeded to Justin Stepp’s reported address at his parents’ home, who informed the deputies that Justin Stepp lived in the house across the street.
- Observing blood on the front door jam of Justin Stepp’s house and on the outside of a truck parked in the driveway, deputies sought a search warrant for the house.
- After the warrant issued, officers searched Justin Stepp’s home, recovering men’s and women’s clothing, a personalized mousepad with a photo of Justin Stepp and Stefanie Ratliff near a computer monitor displaying live video from home security cameras, 9mm and .223 ammunition in upper cabinets, and two 300 Blackout ammunition rounds on the living room floor near men’s shoes.
- The search of Justin Stepp’s home also recovered his driver’s license, a hospital bracelet and a bag of personal items from Gallup Indian Medical Center dated February 8, 2021, and the red wallet previously returned to Ms. Ratliff.
Procedural Posture:
- In July 2021, Justin Stepp was indicted on one count of felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924.
- Justin Stepp proceeded to a jury trial in April 2022.
- At the close of evidence, Justin Stepp moved for Judgment of Acquittal pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29, arguing insufficient evidence of constructive possession due to joint occupancy. The district court for the District of New Mexico (trial court/court of first instance) denied the motion.
- The jury found Justin Stepp guilty on the sole felon-in-possession charge.
- In July 2022, the United States Probation Office released Justin Stepp’s initial Presentence Investigation Report (PSR), calculating his base offense level as 24.
- Justin Stepp filed numerous objections to the PSR, including two objections to the base offense level calculation, arguing his 2002 and 2006 voluntary manslaughter convictions fell outside the applicable lookback periods.
- The district court agreed that the 2006 conviction fell outside the applicable lookback period, lowering the base offense level to 20.
- On October 17, 2022, the district court held a hearing to address Justin Stepp’s remaining objection regarding the 2002 conviction, at which Denise Chavez from the New Mexico Corrections Department testified.
- On January 11, 2023, the district court ruled that Justin Stepp’s 2002 conviction fell within the applicable lookback period for calculating his base offense level, and subsequently calculated his base offense level as 20, criminal history as Category VI, and advisory Guidelines sentencing range as 70 to 87 months.
- The district court sentenced Justin Stepp to 72 months’ incarceration.
- Justin Stepp (Defendant - Appellant) filed a timely appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (intermediate appellate court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does sufficient evidence exist to prove Justin Stepp constructively possessed ammunition found in his home, given the premises were jointly occupied? 2. Did the district court clearly err in its factual finding regarding the end date of Justin Stepp's incarceration for his 2002 conviction, which affected his base offense level under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines?
Opinions:
Majority - McHugh, Circuit Judge
Yes, the evidence presented at trial was sufficient for a reasonable trier of fact to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Justin Stepp had constructive possession of the ammunition found in his home. To establish constructive possession in a joint occupancy case, the Government must show a nexus between the defendant and the contraband, demonstrating the defendant's knowledge, access, and intent to exercise dominion or control over it. Here, the ammunition was found in an actively used home office space within cabinets and on the living room floor, intermixed with Justin Stepp's personal belongings such as his driver's license, hospital items from the night he was shot, and a personalized mousepad. This circumstantial evidence, including the computer monitor displaying live security camera feeds, rationally supports an inference that Justin Stepp actively used the home, including the office area, and had reentered it after his hospital discharge. While other inferences might be possible, the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find all necessary elements beyond a reasonable doubt, consistent with precedent like United States v. Little and United States v. Johnson. The court did not need to address the sufficiency of evidence regarding the firearm found in the car, as possession of the ammunition alone was sufficient to sustain the conviction. No, the district court did not clearly err in its factual finding that Justin Stepp’s 2002 conviction fell within the applicable fifteen-year lookback period for calculating his base offense level. Appellate courts review factual findings at sentencing for clear error, upholding them if supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The district court's finding that Justin Stepp's term of incarceration for his 2002 conviction ended on February 16, 2006, was well supported by the record. This date, less than fifteen years prior to the instant offense on February 7, 2021, was consistent across the New Mexico Corrections Department's documents related to the 2002 conviction and corroborated by Ms. Chavez’s testimony. While Justin Stepp argued for an earlier end date (December 27, 2005) based on an initial error in calculating presentence credit for his 2006 conviction, the district court reasonably declined to rely on this erroneous calculation from the 2006 conviction documents when determining the end date for the 2002 conviction. Therefore, the district court’s factual finding was not clearly erroneous.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the application of constructive possession principles in joint occupancy settings within the Tenth Circuit, emphasizing that a strong circumstantial nexus of knowledge, access, and intent to control is paramount. It provides guidance for prosecutors on what constitutes sufficient evidence, particularly when contraband is found in common areas or intermingled with personal effects. Furthermore, the decision underscores the appellate court's deference to district court factual findings in complex sentencing guideline calculations, particularly those involving multi-jurisdictional or multi-offense criminal histories. This serves as a cautionary tale for defendants challenging such findings, as they must demonstrate not merely a differing interpretation of evidence, but a 'definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made' for reversal.
