Harrisburg Man Indicted On Firearms Offenses

HARRISBURG- The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced today that Johnnie Jahill Wilkerson, age 30, of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, was indicted on August 9, 2017, by a federal grand jury for possessing a firearm and ammunition after having been convicted of a felony and possessing a firearm with an obliterated serial number.

According to U.S. Attorney Bruce D. Brandler, the indictment alleges that Wilkerson had a firearm (Taurus 357 Magnum) in his possession on December 21, 2016.

The case was investigated by the Harrisburg City Police with assistance from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. Assistant United States Attorney James T. Clancy is prosecuting the case.

This case was brought as part of the Violent Crime Reduction Partnership (“VCRP”), a district wide initiative to combat the spread of violent crime in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Led by the United States Attorney’s Office, the VCRP consists of federal, state and local law enforcement agencies whose mission is to locate, apprehend, and prosecute individuals who commit violent crimes with firearms.

Indictments and Criminal Informations are only allegations. All persons charged are presumed to be innocent unless and until found guilty in court.

A sentence following a finding of guilt is imposed by the Judge after consideration of the applicable federal sentencing statutes and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.

The maximum penalty under federal law for possessing a firearm after a felony conviction is 10 years’ imprisonment, a term of supervised release following imprisonment, and a fine. The maximum penalty for possessing a firearm with an obliterated serial number is 5 years in prison, a term of supervised release following imprisonment, and a fine. 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.

# # #