Harrisburg Man Convicted For The Illegal Possession Of A Firearm
The United States Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced today that following a two-day trial before Senior U.S. District Court Judge William W. Caldwell in Harrisburg, Jerome Mario Britton, age 34, was convicted late Wednesday on one-count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.
According to United States Attorney Peter J. Smith, Britton was serving a parole term on state charges when state Parole agents did a parole check/search after Britton’s brother, Dion Britton, was murdered on December 15, 2012. Parole agents entered Britton’s home on December 17, 2012. The initial search revealed contraband, including ammunition, drugs and drug paraphernalia. Parole agents contacted the Harrisburg Police Department and a search warrant for the residence was obtained. As a result of the executed search warrant, two firearms were recovered.
Britton was indicted in January 2013 on two counts of possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, one count of possession a stolen firearm and one count of possession with the intent to distribute a controlled substance, crack cocaine. After deliberating two hours, the jury convicted Britton of one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and found him not guilty of the remaining charges.
This case was jointly investigated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the Harrisburg Police Bureau. This case was prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Meredith A. Taylor.
A sentence following a finding of guilty is imposed by the Judge after consideration of the applicable federal sentencing statutes and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.
Britton faces a mandatory minimum of 15 years’ imprisonment and a statutory maximum of life imprisonment for the firearms offense. A sentencing date has not been scheduled.
Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, the Judge is also required to consider and weigh a number of factors, including the nature, circumstances and seriousness of the offense; the history and characteristics of the defendant; and the need to punish the defendant, protect the public and provide for the defendant’s educational, vocational and medical needs. For these reasons, the statutory maximum penalty for the offense is not an accurate indicator of the potential sentence for a specific defendant.