USA v. Lazarus Reaves, Jr.

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Lazarus Antonio Reaves, Jr.. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 16-17720

Date Filed: 08/11/2017

Page: 1 of 4

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-17720
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:16-po-00015-MHT-TFM-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LAZARUS ANTONIO REAVES, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Alabama
________________________
(August 11, 2017)
Before MARCUS, WILSON, and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 16-17720

Date Filed: 08/11/2017

Page: 2 of 4

Lazarus Antonio Reaves, Jr., pled guilty to simple assault while on a military
installation, a petty offense. He reserved the right to appeal the magistrate judge’s
order denying his motion for a jury trial. Reaves contends that Supreme Court
precedent holding that there is no jury trial entitlement in petty offense cases is
manifestly wrong and due to be overruled.
Reeves was charged in a 3-count information with unlawful entry upon a
military installation, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1382 (count one); simple assault
within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(5) (count two); and unlawful reentry upon a
military installation, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1382 (count three). In guilty
exchange for Reeves’ guilty plea to count two, the government dismissed counts
one and three and agreed that Reeves’ sentence for simple assault would “consist
solely of a fine” in an amount to be determined by the Court. The judge imposed a
fine of $100.
Simple assault, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(5), is punishable by “a
fine . . . or imprisonment for not more than six months, or both.” 18 U.S.C.
§ 113(a)(5). Although we have not addressed whether simple assault is a petty
offense, we have held that assault by striking, beating, or wounding, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(4) is “presumptively petty,” and that the additional penalties
available do not reflect a congressional determination that the offense is serious.
2

Case: 16-17720

Date Filed: 08/11/2017

Page: 3 of 4

United States v. Chavez, 204 F.3d 1305, 1317 (11th Cir. 2000). Unlawful entry
and reentry upon a military installation, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1382, are also
punishable by a fine or a term of not more than six months’ imprisonment, or both.
18 U.S.C. § 1382. Simple assault and unlawful entry and reentry upon a military
installation are Class B misdemeanors, carrying a maximum fine of $5,000. See 18
U.S.C. §§ 3559(a)(7), 3571(b)(6).
“It has long been settled” that the right to a jury trial does not exist in cases
involving petty offenses. Blanton v. City of N. Las Vegas, 489 U.S. 538, 541, 109
S. Ct. 1289, 1292 (1989); accord United States v. Garner, 874 F.2d 1510, 1512
(11th Cir. 1989) (per curiam). The most relevant criteria in determining whether
an offense is petty is the severity of the maximum penalty allowed by law.
Baldwin v. New York, 399 U.S. 66, 68, 90 S. Ct. 1886, 1888 (1970). An offense is
presumed to be “petty” if the maximum term of imprisonment available is less than
six months. Blanton, 489 U.S. at 542–43.
The district court did not err in affirming the magistrate judge’s denial of
Reaves’s motion for jury trial. Because all three charges in Reaves’s case carry a
maximum penalty of not more than six months’ imprisonment, they are
presumptively petty offenses. While a defendant may rebut the presumption by
showing that non-custodial penalties render his offense serious, thus entitling him

3

Case: 16-17720

Date Filed: 08/11/2017

Page: 4 of 4

to a jury trial, see Blanton, 489 U.S. at 543, Reeves made no attempt to rebut the
presumption in this case.
Moreover, we are bound to follow Supreme Court precedent, See United
States v. Greer, 440 F.3d 1267, 1275–76 (11th Cir. 2006), and the Supreme Court
made it clear in Blanton that there is no entitlement to a jury trial for a petty
offense such as this one. Accordingly, the district court did not err in affirming the
magistrate judge’s order denying Reaves’s motion. We therefore affirm Reaves’s
conviction.
AFFIRMED.

4