The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the conviction of Joshua Starling for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The ruling, issued on August 3, 2026, confirms that Starling’s previous convictions warranted an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). This decision impacts Starling and sets a precedent for similar cases involving firearm possession by felons.

Starling was convicted after a bench trial in the Middle District of Tennessee. The court found that he had illegally possessed a firearm due to his prior felony convictions. The case was brought before the Sixth Circuit after Starling appealed his conviction and the subsequent sentence enhancement, which he argued was improperly applied.

Background

Joshua Starling was indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). His indictment stemmed from an incident on May 10, 2021, when he was arrested while delivering mattresses in a neighborhood where he feared for his safety. Starling borrowed a gun from his co-worker for protection, which led to his arrest by police who were surveilling him for an unrelated warrant.

The district court conducted a one-day bench trial, where evidence of Starling's prior felony convictions was presented. These included a 2004 drug offense, a 2006 burglary, and a 2011 drug offense. Starling's indictment did not include allegations that the ACCA applied, which became a central issue in his appeal.

The Ruling

The Sixth Circuit, consisting of Chief Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton and Judges Richard Allen Griffin and John B. Nalbandian, affirmed the lower court's decision. The court ruled that Starling's previous drug convictions qualified as serious drug offenses under the ACCA, allowing for the enhanced sentence. The judges noted, "Starling’s Tennessee cocaine convictions count under ACCA."

Starling raised two main arguments against the application of the ACCA enhancement at sentencing. First, he contended that his previous drug convictions did not meet the ACCA's definition of serious drug offenses. The court found this argument misinterpreted Tennessee law. Second, he argued that the indictment's failure to include ACCA allegations constituted a violation of his rights. The court determined that Starling had forfeited this argument by not raising it in a timely manner.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for individuals facing similar charges. By affirming the lower court's decision, the Sixth Circuit reinforces the importance of including all relevant allegations in an indictment. It also clarifies that prior convictions can be counted under the ACCA even if the indictment does not explicitly mention them, provided that the defendant is aware of the potential for enhanced sentencing.

The decision may influence future cases involving firearm possession by felons, particularly in how courts interpret state laws regarding drug offenses. The ruling emphasizes the need for defendants to raise all relevant objections during trial to avoid forfeiting their rights on appeal.

What's Next

Starling's conviction and sentence can potentially be appealed to the Supreme Court, but it is unclear whether he will pursue this option. There are no related cases pending that directly connect to this ruling.