Federal Appeals Court upholds conviction in Fayetteville Market House burning

Image from Fayetteville city Facebook page

Listen to this story (5 minutes)

  • The 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the conviction of a man who admitted to burning Fayetteville's downtown Market House during a protest in 2020.
  • Charles Pittman faced a five-year federal prison sentence for setting fire to the national historic landmark.
  • Appellate judges rejected Pittman's arguments that he did not violate a federal law and that the law was unconstitutional as applied to his case.

The 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the federal conviction of a man who admitted to setting fire to Fayetteville’s downtown Market House during a protest in 2020.

The building located in a traffic circle downtown has attracted criticism because of its ties to the pre-Civil War slave trade.

“Charles Pittman pleaded guilty to violating a federal law that criminalizes burning or attempting to burn buildings owned by institutions that receive federal funding. On appeal, Pittman argues his conduct did not violate the statute, and, even if it did, the statute is unconstitutional as applied to him,” wrote Judge Toby Heytens for the unanimous three-judge appellate panel.

“We conclude both arguments fail. Pittman’s assertion that he did not violate the statute fails because he waived any such claim by pleading guilty. Pittman’s as-applied constitutional challenge is either waived or forfeited, and we conclude he is ineligible for relief even under the more defendant-friendly forfeiture standard,” Heytens added.

Media outlets documented Pittman carrying a gasoline container to the second story of the Market House, a national historic landmark, in May 2020. Pittman waved the canister to a crowd of protesters outside the building, then poured gasoline on the floor inside, according to court documents. As the building caught fire, a Fayetteville city employee saw Pittman run out of the building.

Pittman entered a guilty plea in September 2020 to two charges of malicious burning a building and inciting a riot. More than a year after the guilty plea, Pittman challenged the conviction on the burning charge. The federal law applied to Pittman focused on the Market House’s status as “an institution receiving Federal financial assistance.”

A trial judge rejected Pittman’s challenge and sentenced him to five years in federal prison on the challenged charge.

“First, Pittman contends that — partly, but not solely, to avoid constitutional problems — we should interpret Section 844(f)(1) as not reaching his conduct. Second, Pittman insists that, even if he violated Section 844(f)(1), the statute is unconstitutional as applied to him. We are not persuaded by either argument,” Heytens wrote.

“Pittman’s assertion that Section 844(f)(1) does not reach his conduct fails because he waived any such challenge by pleading guilty,” the 4th Circuit opinion explained. “By pleading guilty, Pittman necessarily admitted that his conduct violated the statute — indeed, that is the most basic function of a guilty plea. And Pittman identifies no authority saying a criminal defendant may admit to violating a statute by pleading guilty and then obtain appellate relief by insisting there really was no such violation after all.”

“Pittman’s second argument — that Section 844(f)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to his conduct — fares no better,” Heytens wrote. “[W]e conclude that: (1) Pittman’s constitutional challenge is forfeited because he did not timely raise it before the district court; and (2) he is ineligible for relief under the resulting plain-error standard.”

“As Pittman conceded at oral argument, he missed the relevant deadline here,” Heytens added. “True, Pittman ultimately filed a motion to dismiss that (generously construed) argued Section 844(f)(1) was unconstitutional as applied to his conduct. But the deadline for pretrial motions was July 29, 2020 — two months before Pittman pleaded guilty and seventeen months before he moved to dismiss the criminal information — and Pittman never asserted (nor did the district court find) any good cause to excuse the untimely filing.”

“Pittman likewise raised no constitutional challenge at the plea hearing itself. For that reason, his constitutional claims are, at minimum, forfeited,” the court opinion continued.

“Pittman does not challenge the constitutionality of the National Historic Preservation Act or the inclusion of the Market House on the registry,” Heytens added. “We thus may ‘assume’ — for purposes of our decision — that those actions were ‘a constitutional exercise of … congressional power.’ And if the federal government may designate national landmarks and spend federal money to preserve them, it is far from clear or obvious that Congress lacks power to criminalize burning or blowing up such landmarks under its authority ‘[t]o make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution’ its other powers.”

Judges Paul Niemeyer and Roger Gregory joined Heytens’ opinion.

Related