Rule 11 Plea-Constructive Possession

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: United States of America v. Jesse Mickles

Case No.: 25-2657

Officials: Rovner, Sykes, and St. Eve, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Rule 11 Plea-Constructive Possession

In July 2020, Mickles was stopped by an Indiana state trooper during a traffic stop. During the encounter, Mickles admitted that he was a convicted felon and informed the trooper that a firearm was located in his vehicle. The firearm was subsequently recovered from beneath the driver’s seat. Approximately two weeks later, a federal grand jury indicted Mickles for violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which prohibits convicted felons from possessing firearms. As part of a plea agreement, Mickles stipulated to these facts as the basis for his guilty plea. Although he later submitted an affidavit asserting that he was merely returning the firearm to its owner, he acknowledged at the change-of-plea hearing that he understood the charge and agreed with the factual basis set forth in the plea agreement.

The Southern District of Indiana conducted a change-of-plea hearing and confirmed that Mickles understood the nature of the charge and its elements. The court also verified that he had thoroughly reviewed the plea agreement with counsel and that the stipulated facts accurately described his conduct. Finding that the plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by an adequate factual basis, the court accepted Mickles’s guilty plea.

Before the Seventh Circuit, Mickles argued that the district court plainly erred in accepting his plea because the record lacked a sufficient factual basis to establish knowing possession of the firearm, as required under § 922(g)(1). Reviewing the claim for plain error, the Seventh Circuit found overwhelming evidence of constructive possession, including Mickles’s exclusive control of the vehicle, the firearm’s location beneath his seat, and his own admissions to law enforcement. The court concluded that the factual basis for the plea was more than sufficient and rejected Mickles’s argument regarding intent.

Affirmed.

Decided 06/04/26

Full Text