Tag Archives: ACCA

Lousy Lawyering and Other Stories – Update for April 27, 2021

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

“DID I SAY FIVE YEARS? I MEANT FIVE DECADES…”

Four decisions of note last week:

stupidlawyr191202Oops, My Bad: Dave Mayhew was charged with white-collar fraud. The government offered him a plea deal that promised a maximum sentence of five years.

“C’mon, man,” his lawyer said. “That’s no deal. If we go to trial, five years is the worst we can do.” Dave, who paid big bucks for this professional advice, followed his attorney’s guidance and went to trial.

You can guess what happened. Dave lost, and he was sentenced to 27 years.

After appeals were over, Dave filed a habeas corpus motion under 28 USC § 2255, arguing that his lawyer was ineffective for giving him such bad advice. The district court denied the petition, pointing out that Dave was told at his re-arraignment that he could get up to 55 years on all of the charges and the court – no one else – would decide the sentence. So Dave knew what he was getting into, the judge claimed, and that cured any prejudice he would have suffered from his lawyer’s idiocy.

Last week, the 4th Circuit reversed. The re-arraignment came only after Dave had rejected the plea deal. The Circuit admitted that in the usual lousy-advice-on-sentence-exposure case, the law is clear that if the defendant pleads guilty after a Rule 11 change-of-plea hearing, the court’s warning that only it would determine the sentence and that the maximum the defendant faces, “taken together, may well have been enough to cure… counsel’s misadvice. But there is a fundamental problem,” the 4th held, “with applying that principle here, and it has to do with timing: The court’s admonitions in this case came only after Dave already had rejected the government’s plea offer, and there is no indication — in the record or from the government on appeal — that the offer remained open at that point.”

Bait and Switch: Rebecca Stampe made a deal on her drug case, agreeing to a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea locking her sentence at 168 months. An 11(c)(1)(C) plea sets a particular sentence or sentence range, with the court’s role limited to honoring the sentence deal or rejecting the guilty plea.

Deal170216Becky’s deal came with a government promise that if she testified against her co-defendant, she might get a substantial-cooperation sentence reduction under USSG § 5K1.1. But after she made the plea deal, the government dismissed the case against her co-defendant because of some unspecified misconduct by the informant (which presumedly made the informant’s testimony worthless).

Becky demanded information about the misconduct under Brady v Maryland, arguing that it was material to her guilt as well. She also moved to withdraw from her plea agreement (but not her guilty plea), figuring she’d do better with an open plea that let the court sentence her than she would with a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea.

Last week, the 6th Circuit shot her down. The Circuit ruled that the evidence could not possibly be material to Becky’s defense, because she had already pled guilty, so there was no defense left to make. As for the plea agreement, the Circuit said, “While we do not doubt that Stampe sincerely believed that she might avoid some prison time because of her putative cooperation in her co-defendant’s case, the plea agreement contemplated but did not require that possibility. So contrary to her assertion on appeal, it was not the ‘principal purpose’ of the agreement. The main purpose was the exchange of her plea for the government dropping the other charge against her and agreeing to a 168-month sentence.”

mathisEnd Run: John Ham filed a 28 USC § 2241 habeas petition claiming that Mathis v United States – a Supreme court decision that dictated how a sentencing court should apply the “categorical approach” in deciding whether a prior crime was a “crime of violence” under the Armed Career Criminal Act – required that he be resentenced to a lot less time.

John figured that the 4th Circuit’s United States v. Wheeler decision authorized the district court to address his § 2241 petition on the merits. The district court disagreed, and Jim appealed.

Wheeler adopted a four-part test for using § 2241 petitions to attack a defective sentence where a § 2255 motion would be “inadequate or ineffective.” One of those tests is that a petitioner must show a retroactive change in substantive law that happened after the direct appeal and first § 2255 motion.

John claimed that Mathis satisfies that requirement, changing “well-settled substantive law” about how a sentencing court should apply the categorical approach. Last week, the 4th Circuit disagreed.

“Mathis itself made clear that it was not changing, but rather clarifying, the law,” the 4th held. “The categorical approach has always required a look at the elements of an offense, not the facts underlying it… Indeed, Mathis merely repeated the ‘simple point’ that served as ‘a mantra’ in its ACCA decisions: ‘a sentencing judge may look only to the elements of the offense, not to the facts of the defendant’s conduct’.”

abandoned210427jpgSee You Around, Chump: Finally, in the 8th Circuit, Charles Ahumada filed a § 2255 motion arguing his attorney abandoned him by failing to file a petition for rehearing on his direct appeal. Not so, the Circuit said. In order to make a 6th Amendment ineffective assistance, a defendant first has to have a constitutional right to counsel. There is no constitutional right to counsel on a discretionary appeal, and a petition for rehearing is exactly that.

Chuck admitted as much, but argued that the Circuit’s Criminal Justice Act plan requiring counsel to file non-frivolous appeals gave him a due process right to effective counsel. “Even assuming there was a breach of the statute, the CJA,” the 8th said, “it does not give rise to a claim for ineffective representation of counsel.”

United States v. Mayhew, Case No 19-6560, 2021 U.S.App. LEXIS 11248 (4th Cir., April 19, 2021)

United States v. Stampe, Case No 19-6293, 2021 U.S.App. LEXIS 11459 (6th Cir., April 20, 2021)

Ham v. Breckon, Case No 20-6972, 2021 U.S.App. LEXIS 11493 (4th Cir., April 20, 2021)

Ahumada v. United States, Case No 19-3632, 2021 U.S.App. LEXIS 11861 (8th Cir., April 22, 2021)

– Thomas L. Root

Circuits Do Violence to ‘Attempted Violence’ – Update for March 8, 2021

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

TWO CIRCUITS REFUSE TO “DAVIS” ATTEMPT CRIMES

It was a rough week for violent crime.

violent160620The Supreme Court’s 2019 United States v. Davis decision held that conspiracy to commit a violent crime was not itself a “crime of violence” that fell within the definition in 18 USC § 924(c). That is important, because a § 924(c) for using or carrying a gun during a crime of violence or drug offense carries a hefty mandatory sentence that by law is consecutive to the sentence for the underlying offense.  

Since Davis, a hot question facing courts has been whether a mere attempt to commit a violent crime should be lumped with conspiracy as inherently nonviolent.

Last Monday, the 2nd Circuit denied Kevin Collier’s post-conviction motion to throw out his § 924(c) in the wake of Davis, holding that his attempted bank robbery offense (18 USC §2113(a)) was indeed a crime of violence supporting his § 924(c) conviction.

In 2019, the Circuit held in United States v. Moore that § 2113(a) bank robbery was categorically a crime of violence under § 924(c)’s elements clause, and in United States v. Hendricks the Court found that Hobbs Act robbery and New York 3rd-degree robbery were crimes of violence as well. But Kevin argued he could be convicted of an attempt to rob a bank without ever getting to the point that he used force or threatened anyone and that it thus did not fall under § 924(c)’s elements clause. Driving up to the bank with a mask and a gun was enough to get him convicted, and that did not require he first commit any violent act.

violence180508The 2nd Circuit disagreed, noting that the crime of attempt requires that the defendant have intended to commit each of the elements of the substantive crime. A § 2113(a) conviction for attempted bank robbery requires that the defendant “by force and violence, or by intimidation… attempt[s] to take” the property at issue. Because Hendricks held that bank robbery by intimidation was a crime of violence, “a conviction for attempted bank robbery is a categorical match for a crime of violence under 924(c)’s elements clause, regardless of whether the substantial step taken involved the use of force.”

The 2nd declined to reach the question of whether all “attempts” to commit other crimes of violence would necessarily be considered “crimes of violence” under § 924(c), limiting its holding to attempted § 2113(a) bank robbery, which expressly requires that the attempt have been committed by force, violence, or intimidation. The Circuit admitted the question might be thornier if the statute of conviction did not clearly state that the elements of the attempt must include an act of force, violence, or intimidation.

The very next day, the 2nd Circuit issued an en banc opinion reversing a prior appellate decision that New York 1st-degree manslaughter was not a crime of violence. Gerald Scott was released in 2018 after serving 11 years of a 22-year Armed Career Criminal Act sentence when the district court held his prior manslaughter convictions were not crimes of violence. The district court reasoned that because someone can cause death by omission, manslaughter could be accomplished without employing any force or threat of force at all.

violence160110The en banc decision needed 50 pages to explain why New York 1st-degree manslaughter in New York qualifies as a crime of violence, and 70 more pages for the concurrences and dissents to debate what Ohio State law prof Doug Berman called “a formalistic legal matter that is an awful artifice of poorly conceived and constructed federal sentencing law.” In a nutshell, the majority, relying on the definition of physical force in Curtis Johnson v. United States, held that “1st-degree manslaughter is a categorically violent crime because its elements — (1) the causation of death (2) by a person intent on causing at least serious physical injury — necessarily involve the use of violent force.”

Finally, not to be outdone, last Friday a 3rd Circuit panel held that an attempt to commit a Hobbs Act robbery was categorically a crime of violence under the “elements” clause of 18 USC § 924(c). Defendant Marcus Walker argued that his conviction must be vacated because a person can be convicted of attempted Hobbs Act robbery based on nothing more than an intent to complete the robbery without actually committing a violent act and with only the intent to do so.

But the 3rd, in a decision that described in detail the circuit split on the issue, refused to follow the 4th Circuit’s United States v. Taylor ruling, and instead joined the 5th, 7th, 9th and 11th Circuits in holding tha it is “apparent that Congress meant for all attempted crimes of violence to be captured by the elements clause of § 924(c), and courts are not free to disregard that direction and hold otherwise.”

furball210308There is little doubt that this issue, and probably the whole “attempt” furball, is headed for the Supreme Court.

Collier v. United States, Case No 17-2402, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 5894 (2d Cir. Mar 1, 2021)

United States v. Scott, Case No 18-163-cr, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 6014 (2d Cir. Mar 2, 2021)

United States v. Walker, Case No 15-4062, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 6453 (3d Cir. Mar 5, 2021)

Lexology, Second Circuit Holds that Attempted Bank Robbery is Categorically a ‘Crime of Violence’ (March 4, 2021)

Sentencing Law and Policy: En banc Second Circuit needs 120 pages and five opinions to sort out whether NY first-degree manslaughter qualifies as a federal “violent crime” (March 2, 2021)

– Thomas L. Root

1st Circuit Gives Pre-Booker Career Offenders Some Relief– Update for October 5, 2020

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

NO DEFENDANT LEFT BEHIND

vagueness160110The 2015 Supreme Court decision Johnson v. United States was a landmark, holding that the residual clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act’s definition of “crime of violence” was unconstitutionally vague. Johnson’s reasoning led to Sessions v. Dimaya (extending Johnson to the criminal code’s general definition of “crime of violence” at 18 USC § 16(b)) and 2019’s United States v. Davis holding extending Johnson to 18 USC § 924(c), the “use or carry a firearm” statute.

But thousands of inmates who were held to be Guidelines “career offenders” because of prior crimes of violence got no relief. A Guidelines “career offender” is very different from an ACCA armed career criminal. A Guidelines career offender is someone with two prior crimes of violence or serious drug convictions (federal or state). If a defendant qualifies as a Guidelines career offender, he or she will be deemed to have the highest possible criminal history score and a Guidelines offense level that ensures a whopping sentencing range.

After Johnson, a number of Guidelines career offenders, whose status had been fixed by including some dubious prior convictions as “violent,” sought the same kind of relief that Johnson afforded armed career criminals. But in 2017 the Supremes said that Johnson did not apply to the Guidelines. Beckles v. United States held that the Guidelines were not subject to the same kind of “vagueness” challenge that worked in Johnson, because the Guidelines did not “fix the permissible range of sentences, but merely guided the exercise of discretion in choosing a sentence within the statutory range.”

This may have been so for people sentenced under the advisory Guidelines. However, back before the 2005 Supreme Court decision in United States v. Booker, those “advisory” Guidelines were mandatory. They did not guide a judge’s discretion. Instead, the law required a judge to sentence within the applicable Guidelines sentencing range except in very narrow circumstances, and then only if the sentencing court jumped through the many hoops the Guidelines erected.

Robber160229So, how about guys like Tony Shea, who was sentenced after a bank robbery spree as a career offender back in 1998? Tony’s prior crimes of violence were pretty shaky bases for a career offender enhancement (not that Tony didn’t have plenty of problems for his string of armed robberies, but that’s another story). Tony was looking at minimum 430 months under normal Guidelines, nothing to sneeze at, but with the career offender label, Tony’s minimum sentence shot that up to 567 months (that’s 47-plus years, or 330 dog years).

Tony filed a § 2255 motion arguing that because his Guidelines career offender sentence was mandatory, not “advisory,” the Johnson holding should apply to wipe out his career offender status.

Last Monday, the 1st Circuit agreed. The appeals court noted that while Beckles was right that advisory Guidelines guide a judge’s discretion rather than “fix the permissible range of sentences,” the pre-Booker Guidelines did much more than this. The Circuit said “when the pre-Booker Guidelines ‘bound the judge to impose a sentence within’ a prescribed range, as they ordinarily did, they necessarily “fixed the permissible range of sentences” she could impose.”

Judicial despotism... probably not a good thing.
         Judicial despotism… probably not a good thing.

“It’s easy,” the 1st said “to see why vague laws that fix sentences… violate the Due Process Clause. The… rule applied in Booker serves two main functions. First, fair notice: requiring the indictment to allege ‘every fact which is legally essential to the punishment to be inflicted… enables the defendant to determine the species of offence with which he is charged in order that he may prepare his defense accordingly…” Second, “the rule also guards against the threat of ‘judicial despotism’ that could arise from ‘arbitrary punishments upon arbitrary convictions,’ by requiring the jury to find each fact the law makes essential to his punishment.”

Only the 11th Circuit has explicitly held that Beckles does not apply to mandatory Guidelines career offender enhancements. The 5th, 8th and 10th Circuits are on the fence. This 1st Circuit decision is the first to emphatically apply Johnson to give relief to people like Tony, who is already well into his third decade of imprisonment.

Shea v. United States, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 30776 (1st Cir., September 28, 2020)

– Thomas L. Root

Timing Is Everything – Update for March 17, 2020

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

A DISTINCTION WITH A DIFFERENCE

gunb160201Clint Rumley had amassed quite a record by the time he was convicted of being a felon in possession of a gun under 18 USC 922(g)(1). He had over 20 prior state convictions, with five of them eligible predicate crimes of violence or drug offenses that would let the district court sentence him to a minimum 15 years under the Armed Career Criminal Act. Clint’s presentence report identified four of the prior convictions as supporting the ACCA sentence enhancement, one more than the minimum three priors called for by the ACCA.

When Johnson v. United States – a 2015 Supreme Court case that substantially narrowed what crimes could be considered crimes of violence – came along seven years into Clint’s 15-year sentence, he filed a post-conviction motion under 28 USC § 2255 to have his ACCA sentence set aside. The district court agreed with Clint that two of the four predicate convictions identified in the presentence report no longer counted, and vacated his 15-year sentence. But when Clint was resentenced, the new PSR noted that one state conviction not previously relied on for as qualifying as an ACCA predicate should have been counted against him. That conviction, plus the two priors that remained crimes of violence under the ACCA, got Clint resentenced to 15 years.

Clint appealed, relying on a 4th Circuit decision, United States v. Hodge. Hodge held that the government was not allowed to oppose a 28 USC 2255 motion raising Johnson claims by arguing that a prior conviction that had not been designated during the sentencing proceeding should have been counted as an ACCA predicate. But last week the 4th Circuit said Hodge was different, and upheld Clint’s new 15-year sentence.

In Hodge, the Circuit ruled, “we explained that defendants have a right to adequate notice of the government’s plan to seek an ACCA enhancement and of the convictions that may support that enhancement” (typically done by listing the supporting convictions in the PSR). When the government opposed a § 2255 motion by arguing that there were other convictions that could have been used to support an ACCA, the Circuit said, it shifted the burden of proof: while “at the sentencing the government has the burden of proving the defendant has three prior ACCA-qualifying convictions… on collateral review, the defendant has the burden of proving that the convictions supporting his ACCA enhancement are infirm.”

judge160425The Hodge concerns, however, do not arise in a full resentencing like the one Clint got. ‘The court conducted a full sentencing hearing, at which it received evidence and made findings of fact,” the Circuit said. Unlike Hodge, Clint “had adequate notice of the designated predicate convictions, giving him a full opportunity to challenge them. Moreover, the 2019 sentencing proceeding was conducted under the burdens of proof applicable in every sentencing, and our review is conducted under direct appeal standards, rather than on standards applicable to review of collateral proceedings.”

United States v. Rumley, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 8128 (4th Cir. Mar. 13, 2020)

– Thomas L. Root

A Short Rocket – Update for March 12, 2020

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

WE’VE GOT THE SHORTS…

rocket-312767Arson: In a decision approving filing a second-or-successive 2255 motion, the 6th Circuit last week held that because United States v. Davis is retroactive, a defendant who was convicted of 18 USC 844(i) arson and an 18 USC 924(c) use of a destructive device (a Molotov cocktail) could challenge the 924(c) conviction.

The 6th said the defendant’s “924(c) conviction was premised upon his use of a destructive device in furtherance of the 844(i) offense… The question is whether 844(i) has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another… Arson under 844(i) does not appear to qualify as a crime of violence under 924(c)(3)(A) because it can be committed against “any building… used in interstate or foreign commerce,” including one owned by the arsonist… That means defendant’s 924 conviction must have been based on 924(c)(3)(B), which Davis invalidated…”

In re Franklin, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 6672 (6th Cir. Mar, 3, 2020)

manyguns190423Waiver: The defendant pled guilty to violating 18 USC 924(c) for brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence — theft from a firearms dealer under 18 USC 922(u). He filed a 2255 motion claiming after United States v. Davis, a 922(u) violation no longer counts as a crime of violence. But his plea agreement included the waiver of his right to contest the conviction and sentence “on any ground, including any claim of ineffective assistance of counsel unless the claimed ineffective assistance of counsel relates directly to this waiver or its negotiation, including any appeal… or any post-conviction proceeding, including but not limited to, a proceeding under Title 28, United States Code, Section 2255…”

Last week, the 7th Circuit ruled this collateral-attack waiver was valid and barred a Davis challenge to the conviction and sentences.

Oliver v United States, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 6760 (7th Cir. Mar. 4, 2020)

Fair Sentencing Act: The Defendants were sentenced for crack offenses under 21 USC 841(b)(1)(A) prior to the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. After the First Step Act passed, they applied for sentence reductions. The government; argued they were not eligible because the amounts of crack they were found to have been involved with at sentencing were so great that their sentence exposure did not change.

crackpowder160606The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York last week held that the defendants were eligible. It held that “the weight of authority supports Defendants’ interpretation. “[T]he majority of district court cases in this Circuit” have found “that a defendant is eligible for relief under the First Step Act based upon his offense of conviction, as opposed to his actual conduct… Decisions from other circuits also favor Defendants’ interpretation. See United States v. White, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119164 (S.D. Tex., July 17, 2019) (collecting over 40 cases across the nation that agree with defendants’ interpretation of ‘covered offense’).”

The EDNY court said it “joins the chorus of district courts to hold that eligibility under… the First Step Act is based on the crime of conviction and not a defendant’s actual conduct. Both defendants were convicted of violating 21 USC 841(b)(1)(A), the statutory penalties for which were modified by the Fair Sentencing Act. They are both therefore eligible for a sentence reduction under the First Step Act.”

United States v. Pressley, 2020 US Dist. LEXIS 34973 (EDNY Feb 28, 2020)

ACCA Recklessness: The Supreme Court last week granted certiorari to a case asking whether an offense that involves physical force that is used recklessly – that is, conduct undertaken with a conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk – is a crime of violence for Armed Career Criminal Act purposes.

A prior case asking the same issue was recently dismissed after the defendant/petitioner died.

Borden v. United States, Case No. 19-5410 (certiorari granted Mar. 2, 2020)

– Thomas L. Root

Supreme Court Disappoints on Shular – Update for March 2, 2020

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

SUPREME COURT REJECTS EFFORT TO NARROW ACCA-PREDICATE DRUG CRIMES

The Supreme Court last week refused to extend the Taylor/Mathis “categorical” approach – an approach that has substantially narrowed the definition of a crime of violence – to “serious drug offense” prior convictions that can qualify a defendant for the Armed Career Criminal Act 15-year mandatory minimum.

A unanimous court held in Shular v. United States that the only thing that matters in analyzing whether a prior conviction is a “serious drug offense” is that the state offense involve the conduct specified in the ACCA, not that the state offense match some particular generic drug offense.

A primer: The ACCA is a penalty statute that applies to 18 USC § 922(g)(1), the so-called felon-in-possession statute. Section 922(g)(1) prohibits people with a prior conviction for a felony from possessing guns or ammo. The penalty for violating 922(g)(1) is set out in 18 USC 924(a), a sentence of zero to ten years in prison.

Robber160229However, there’s a kicker.  If the defendant has three prior convictions for crimes of violence, serious drug felonies (or a combination of the two), he or she is considered an “armed career criminal,” and the penalty skyrockets to a minimum of 15 years and a maximum of life. This enhanced penalty is set out in a different subsection, 18 USC § 924(e)(2), and is known as the Armed Career Criminal Act.

The ACCA includes definitions of what constitutes a crime of violence and what qualifies as a “serious drug felony.” The “crime of violence” definition has been the subject of a number of Supreme Court decisions in the last decade or so, including findings that one subsection – which provided that a crime was violent if it carried a substantial likelihood of physical harm – was unconstitutionally vague (Johnson v. United States, 2015). Judging whether and the requirement that when judging whether a state conviction was a crime of violence, the district court had to apply the “categorical approach.” Under that approach, one would not look at what the defendant was convicted of having done, but instead whether the offense could be committed (and reasonably would be prosecuted) without any violent physical conduct.

A good example of this is found in our review last month of Hobbs Act robbery. Everyone agrees that a robbery is violent – after all, use of force or threat of force is an element. But is an attempted Hobbs Act robbery violent? One can be convicted of attempted Hobbs Act robbery by walking up to the bank’s front door carrying a mask and a gun. That act requires no violence at all.

drugdealer180228But for all of the ink that’s been spilled on ACCA crimes of violence, the “serious drug offense” definition has been unscathed. That definition provides that a prior drug conviction counts toward the ACCA’s three-conviction predicate only if it involves “manufacturing, distributing, or possessing with intent to manufacture or distribute, a controlled substance.” Seems simple. But it’s not.

Defendant Eddie Shular argued that the terms in the statute are shorthand for the elements of the prior offense. He maintained that a district court had to first identify the elements of the “generic” drug offense, that is, the offense that Congress must have had in mind when it wrote the statute. The district court then had to ask whether the elements of the defendant’s prior state offense matched those of the generic crime.

This was important to Eddie, because he said his prior Florida drug convictions did not include a mens rea element, that is, they lacked the requirement that he had to know the substance he possessed was illegal.

oldlady200302Assume Eddie was right that the Florida statute lacked a mens rea requirement. Such a statute, that made it a felony to possess illegal drugs with an intention to distribute, would permit conviction of a little old lady who went to pick up her neighbor’s laxative at the drug store as a favor, but was accidentally given Oxycontin instead. After she gave the drug store bag to her neighbor, she would have possessed a controlled substance, and she would have distributed it. Eddie argued that a defective statute like that had to be measured against a generally-accepted generic PWITD statute, one that required the defendant know that he or she possessed an illegal substance.

The Supreme Court didn’t buy it. Instead, the Justices unanimously sided with the government’s view, that the a court should simply ask whether the prior state offense’s elements “necessarily entail one of the types of conduct” identified in the statute. In other words, the terms ““manufacturing, distributing, or possessing with intent to manufacture or distribute, a controlled substance” described conduct, not elements. It does not matter how many possible ways there might be to violate the state statute, nor does it matter whether other elements were present or lacking. If the defendant’s conduct was one of the listed terms, the prior felony was a “serious drug offense.”

mens160307

(For what it’s worth, the Court’s opinion disputed Eddie’s contention that the Florida statute lacked a mens rea element, but the unanimous decision focused on the “conduct vs. elements” debate, not about the intricacies of the Florida statute.)

The decision is a disappointment for people who hoped the decision would do for ACCA people with drug priors what Taylor and Mathis did for crimes of violence. Leah Litman, a law professor at University of California – Irvine, wrote in SCOTUSBlog that the Shular decision “confirms two realities of the court’s docket. The first is the ease with which the court finds unanimity in ruling against criminal defendants; the second is the sprawling reach of federal criminal law, particularly with respect to drugs, guns and immigration.”

Shular v. United States, 2020 U.S. LEXIS 1366 (Supreme Ct. Feb. 26, 2020)

– Thomas L. Root

Quantifying The “Bad” In “Bad Boy” – Update for February 19, 2020

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

7TH CIRCUIT PUZZLED BY INCONSISTENT UPWARD SENTENCING VARIANCES

pecks200219Jesse Ballard was a bad boy, having compiled what his sentencing court called “probably one of the worst criminal histories I’ve seen in 30 years” of experience. From 1985 until 2017, he accrued over 30 convictions for attempted burglary, kidnapping, battery, and aggravated assault. He also committed a pile of parole violations, prison disciplinary infractions, and a few DUIs, just for good measure.

When Jesse was sentenced for being a felon in possession of a gun (in violation of 18 USC § 922(g)(1)), the court applied the Armed Career Criminal Act’s 15-year minimum mandatory sentence as a starting point, and then – considering Jesse’s extensive criminal history – went upward from there. The judge imposed a sentence of 232 months, a 10% upward variance from the high end of Jesse’s advisory Guidelines sentencing range.

badjudge171016But on appeal, Jesse proved that his prior attempted burglary convictions could not count as ACCA predicates. This dropped his Guidelines range dramatically. No more ACCA 15-to-life sentencing range – now, Jesse’s statutory maximum was 10 years, and his advisory Guidelines sentencing range was a mere 33-41 months. At Jesse’s resentencing, the judge – still citing our boy’s “extensive criminal history, which it found demonstrated a disrespect for the law and an inability to live a law-abiding life” – varied upward again by 67 months, imposing a 108-month sentence.

Naturally, this came as a shock to Jesse’s system. He headed back to the Court of Appeals. Last week, the 7th Circuit reversed Jesse’s sentence again.

The Circuit observed that when a district court fails to adequately explain a chosen sentence, including the reason for deviation from the range, it commits a procedural error. This makes sense: an appellate court can hardly review the reasonableness of a sentence if the district court has not provided an adequate explanation for why it did what it did.


badboy200219Here, the Circuit complained, the district court failed to justify the extreme difference between the second sentence’s upward variance and that of the original sentence. “To justify a sentence that was 67 months above the Guidelines range (a 160% upward departure),” the 7th held, “the court referred to… appropriate factors to consider under 18 USC § 3553. However, these were the same factors cited and discussed at the original sentencing, resulting in a sentence only 22 months above the original Guidelines range (a 10% upward departure)… The district court’s explanation of its departure from the Guidelines upon resentencing does not articulate and justify the magnitude of the variance where the explanation is essentially identical to the explanation provided for a much less extreme departure in the original sentence.”

The district court will now get a third whack at our mischievous Jesse. This is not to say that Jesse should expect much leniency – just more explanation.

United States v. Ballard, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 4771 (7th Cir, Feb 14, 2020)

– Thomas L. Root

Supremes Run Down the ACCA ‘Rabbit Hole’ – Update for January 29, 2020

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

DON’T HOLD YOUR BREATH WAITING FOR SHULAR

It’s a fool’s game to try to guess the outcome of a Supreme Court case by reading the oral argument. But still, last week’s Shular v. United States hearing shouldn’t have any inmate giving away the contents of his locker in expectation of quick release.

gunwife200130Shular asks the court to interpret the Armed Career Criminal Act definition of “serious drug offense” to require that a prior state conviction find the defendant “knowingly” handled a controlled substance, which Eddie Shular’s Florida prior did not. His precise question is whether the determination of a “serious drug offense” under the ACCA requires the same categorical approach used in the determination of a “violent felony.”

Congress defined a “serious drug offense” to include an “offense under State law, involving manufacturing, distributing, or possessing with intent to manufacture or distribute, a controlled substance … for which a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more is prescribed by law.” The government is arguing that the words following “involving” describe only conduct, regardless of a defendant’s intent.

Justice Alito is clearly skeptical of Shular’s approach. Surprisingly, similar misgivings were voiced by Justices Ginsburg and Kagan, with Gorsuch on the fence but leaning toward the government. Justice Thomas revealed nothing, but is a reliable vote for the government.

Shular argues that without a mens rea requirement, and with the squishy “involving” standard, people could get prosecuted for unknowingly distributing or possessing drugs was misplaced. Justice Alito argued that because ACCA is aimed at repeat offenders, the statute’s penalties are triggered only when a defendant has multiple prior convictions. It was doubtful someone would unknowingly distribute or possess drugs twice.

bunnygun190423Justice Breyer asked the government whether its interpretation of “involving” as not including a mens rea requirement would sweep in prior convictions that only tangentially or remotely involved controlled substances. SCOTUSBlog observed that “although Breyer’s skeptical questioning of the government is often a good sign for a criminal defendant, it is unclear if there are five votes for Shular. Some of the court’s textualists had serious misgivings about Shular’s interpretation, and several justices seemed eager to disavow that interpretation to the extent it required courts to construct generic definitions of offenses… The one concern that seemed to unite several of the justices (including unusual bedfellows Gorsuch and Breyer) was the uncertain and potentially expansive reach of the government’s interpretation of the ACCA. Time will tell whether the court is willing to throw the dice and take the risk of going down another ACCA rabbit hole, this one about the possible reach of the word ‘involving’.”

SCOTUSBlog, Argument analysis: Another ACCA rabbit hole? (Jan. 21)

Sentencing Law and Policy, SCOTUS to contemplate yet another level of ACCA jurisprudential hell with Shular oral argument (Jan. 20)

– Thomas L. Root

4th Holds Defendant Has Right to Know About ACCA Sentence at Guilty Plea – Update for January 21, 2020

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

4TH CIRCUIT HOLDS LIKELY ACCA SENTENCE MUST BE MENTIONED AT PLEA HEARING

A week ago last Friday, the 4th Circuit ruled that a defendant in a felon-in-possession-of-a-firearm case (18 USC § 922(g)(1)) must be told of the risk that he or she will receive a mandatory minimum 15-year sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (18 USC § 924(e)) at the time the guilty plea is entered.

guilty170417Anyone is entitled to plead guilty, and a lot of people do. In fact, something like 97% of all federal defendants enter guilty pleas. That could be because of the superior law enforcement work done in ensuring that only guilty people ever get indicted. Of course, it could be that the system is rigged so that most of the time, the only rational course for a defendant to pursue is to admit to whatever the government has charged him or her with, in order to save a spouse from indictment, to secure a sentence that offers some chance of release in a reasonable time frame, or just to get out of jail and into a prison setting which is sweeter than county lockup.

Nevertheless, when a defendant enters a guilty plea, he or she gives up a panoply of constitutional rights, such as right to a trial by jury, a right to confront the accusers, the right to present evidence, the right to be found guilty only beyond a reasonable doubt. For that reason, due process and Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure require that a guilty plea be entered with the defendant aware of those rights, aware of the contents of any written plea agreement, and aware of the maximum penalty he or she faces.

changeofplea170616Jesmene Lockhart pled guilty without a plea agreement to a single § 922(g)(1) count. During a Rule 11 change-of-plea hearing (which is a lengthy formal proceeding at which the defendant changes the “not guilty” plea into a “guilty” plea), the magistrate judge asked the government to “summarize the charge and the penalty.” The government said the “maximum penalty” Jesmene faced was 10 years.

This was technically correct: at that time, everyone was reading the sentencing statute, 18 USC § 924(a)(2), which specified a maximum sentence of 10 years. No one was considering whether Jesmene had prior convictions that might result in his getting a 15-year mandatory minimum ACCA sentence under § 924(e).

But as the parties prepared for sentencing, the presentence report writer uncovered Jesmene’s prior convictions, and noticed the parties that he was eligible for the ACCA 14-year mandatory minimum sentence. Jesmene fought the ACCA designation, arguing that the convictions were too remote (he had been 16 years old), too close in time to one another, and statutorily exempt. Nothing worked.

What Jesmene did not try to do was to withdraw his guilty plea on the grounds it was not knowing and voluntary, because has was not told he could get an ACCA sentence. On appeal, even under the tougher “plain error” standard (because his trial court lawyer had not raised the issue), Jesmene claimed his guilty plea was involuntary because he had not been told about the possible ACCA sentence. He contended the benefit he gained from pleading guilty – a reduction from the bottom of his ACCA guideline range of 188 months to 180 months – was “so small as to be virtually non-existent.” Had he known about the risk of an ACCA sentence and how little a plea deal would help him, Jesmene contended, he would have had strong incentive to go to trial to try to avoid the 15-year ACCA sentence altogether.

plea161116In a January 10 en banc opinion, the 4th Circuit held that Jesmene had met the plain error standard: the failure to inform him of the ACCA sentence at the change-of-plea was an error, it was plain, it affected his substantial rights, and “the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” The Circuit cited national statistics that felon-in-possession defendants only go to trial 3% of the time, but ACCA defendants choose trial 13.5% of the time, and noted that the difference in Jesmene’s guidelines as a non-ACCA defendant and under the ACCA was 125 months. Plus, his very old criminal history (three burglaries within a short time span when he was 16 years old) suggested that Jesmene, being unaware of the ACCA risk, would reasonably have expected to be sentenced at the bottom of his 46-57 month advisory guideline range. By contrast, the only benefit he got from pleading guilty to an ACCA was an 8-month break for acceptance of responsibility.

The 4th said, “the magistrate judge’s failure to inform Lockhart of the correct sentencing range was an obvious and significant mistake. Such an error undermines the very purpose of Rule 11 that a defendant be fully informed of the nature of the charges against him and of the consequences of his guilty plea… As a result of this error,  Lockhart had every reason to think after the plea hearing that he would receive a sentence within the stated statutory range of between zero and 120 months’ imprisonment…”

United States v. Lockhart, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 822 (4th Cir. Jan 10, 2020)

– Thomas L. Root

Supremes to Hear Another ACCA Case – Update for November 20, 2019

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

SUPREME COURT GRANT CERTIORARI TO ANOTHER ARMED CAREER CRIMINAL CASE

In the last few years, it’s been a great time to be an armed career criminal. Not really (we don’t recommend doing it at any time), but the Armed Career Criminal Act has been the focus of the Court’s attention both directly (Johnson v. United States, Mathis v. United States and Rehaif v. United States) as well as indirectly (United States v. Beckles, Sessions v. Dimaya and United States v. Davis).

Robber160229A quick primer: 18 USC 922(g) provides that certain classes of people – convicted felons, drug abusers, fugitives, illegal aliens – are prohibited from possessing guns and ammo (the actual items, not just the magazine). If you are convicted of a § 922(g) offense, you face a maximum of 10 years in prison. But, if you have three prior convictions for drug felonies, crimes of violence or a combination of the two, you fall under the Armed Career Criminal Act (18 USC § 924(e)), and your penalty starts at 15 years and goes all the way to life in prison.

Ever since the 2016 Supreme Court decision in Voisine v. United States, most appellate courts have been holding that a crime committed with a mens rea of recklessness was enough to establish the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force. Junior Walton discovered 13 bullets in a rooming house that he managed and removed them for safekeeping. He was convicted of possessing ammunition as a felon, in violation of 18 USC 922(g)(1) and sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act to 15 years. The application of the ACCA turned on whether one of his past convictions, which could be committed with a mens rea of recklessness, qualified as a violent felony under the ACCA’s force clause.

The district court said it did not. The 6th Circuit, with several dissenting judges, said it did in an en banc proceeding. Last week, the Supreme Court granted cert to Junior on the question of whether a criminal offense that can be committed with a mens rea of recklessness can qualify as a “violent felony” under the ACCA.

The case, which will be decided by the end of June 2020, could further limit the kinds of prior convictions that will support an ACCA sentence. Just in time, too: last week Attorney General William Barr announced a new DOJ initiative, Project Guardian, intended to “increase scrutiny of people convicted of violent felonies or domestic violence, potentially reducing their access to firearms.”

Walker v United States, Case No. 19-373 (cert. granted Nov. 15)

New York Times, Justice Dept. Unveils Gun Plan, Sidestepping a Preoccupied Washington (Nov. 13)

– Thomas L. Root