Tag Archives: johnson

4th Circuit Holds Plea Agreement Waiver Does Not Block Johnson/Dimaya/Davis Claims – Update for August 5, 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.

DODGING THE WAIVER

190805myopiaA type of myopia common among federal defendants filing post-conviction § 2255 motions is understandable: people get so focused on their substantive issues – the prosecutor lied, the defense attorney slept, the judge was inept – that no one ever asks whether some arcane issue of procedure will defeat his or her claim before the merits are ever reached.

One of the first procedural issues I usually worry about is the waiver. Face it, 97% of federal inmates plead guilty, and almost all of them sign some kind of plea agreement. And almost all plea agreements include a waiver section, in which a defendant waives the right to appeal or to collaterally attack (as in, file a § 2255 motion) the conviction or sentence. There is always an exception in the case of prosecutorial misconduct or ineffective assistance of counsel, but what happens when something like Johnson v. United States or Sessions v. Dimaya or United States v. Davis comes along?

Randall Cornette, convicted of a felon-in-possession charge, challenged his Armed Career Criminal Act sentence. The trial court had relied on some old Georgia burglaries that Randy said could no longer count under Johnson. The government replied that Randy had signed a plea agreement waiver that prevented him from raising a Johnson issue.Waivers160215

Last week, the 4th Circuit ruled that a plea agreement waiver does not prevent a defendant from taking advantage of Supreme Court decisions like Johnson or Davis. The appeals court ruled that an otherwise valid appeal waiver did not bar Randy from now arguing that by imposing a sentence under the unconstitutional residual clause of the ACCA, the district court exceeded its statutory authority to sentence him.

The Court said that an appeal waiver does not preclude a defendant from challenging a sentence “based on a constitutionally impermissible factor” or “a sentence imposed in excess of the maximum penalty provided by statute.” Randy’s sentence challenge is based on the assertion that the district court did not have the statutory authority to impose the sentence under to the residual clause. Because Johnson was made retroactive by the Supreme Court, the Circuit said, “all sentences rendered under the residual clause became unconstitutional. Therefore, Randy’s sentence was imposed in excess of the maximum penalty provided by ACCA.”

The 4th said that this doesn’t mean that a non-retroactive change in the law, like Booker or Alleyne, can be challenged where there is a collateral-attack waiver. But where a Supreme Court case (like Davis, for instance) “announces a substantive rule that applies retroactively, the district court is now deemed to have had no statutory authority to impose [a] sentence,” and a court may review a sentencing challenge “notwithstanding the appeal waiver.”

United States v. Cornette, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 22554 (4th Cir. July 30, 2019)

– Thomas L. Root

Davis Lives! 924(c)(3)(B) Residual Clause Held to be Unconstitutionally Vague – Update for June 25, 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.

THE LAST JOHNSON DOMINO FALLS

By a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court yesterday upheld the categorical approach to judging whether offenses were crimes of violence, ruling that 18 USC § 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague.

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion that “[i]n our constitutional order, a vague law is no law at all.”

vagueness160110The vagueness doctrine rests on the twin constitutional pillars of due process and separation of powers. Having applied the doctrine in two cases involving statutes that “bear more than a passing resemblance to § 924(c)(3)(B)’s residual clause” – those being Johnson v. United States (Armed Career Criminal Act residual clause unconstitutional) and Sessions v. Dimaya (18 USC § 16(b) residual clause unconstitutional) – the Court completed its frolic through the residual clauses in the criminal code.

Courts use the “categorical approach” to determine whether an offense qualified as a violent felony or crime of violence. Judges had to disregard how the defendant actually committed the offense and instead imagine the degree of risk that would attend the idealized “‘ordinary case’ ” of the offense.

The lower courts have long held § 924(c)(3)(B) to require the same categorical approach. After the 11th Circuit’s decision in Ovalles, the government advanced the argument everywhere that for § 924(c)(3)(B), courts should abandon the traditional categorical approach and use instead a case-specific approach that would look at the defendant’s actual conduct in the predicate crime.

The Supreme Court rejected that, holding that while the case-specific approach would avoid the vagueness problems that doomed the statutes in Johnson and Dimaya and would not yield to the same practical and Sixth Amendment complications that a case-specific approach under the ACCA and § 16(b) would, “this approach finds no support in § 924(c)’s text, context, and history.”

hathanded190625The government campaign came to a head in Davis, a 5th Circuit case in which the appellate court said that conspiracy to commit a violent crime was not a crime of violence, because it depended on the § 924(c)(3)(B) residual clause. The Dept. of Justice felt confident enough to roll the dice on certiorari. Yesterday, the DOJ had its hat handed to it.

Who does this benefit? Principally, it benefits anyone who received a § 924(c) enhanced sentence for an underlying conspiracy charge. Beyond that, it helps anyone else whose “crime of violence” depended on the discredited § 924(c)(3)(B) residual clause.

The Court did not rule that Davis is retroactive for 28 USC § 2255  post-conviction collateral attack purposes, because that question was not before it. SCOTUS never rules on retroactivity in the same opinion that holds a statute unconstitutional. There is little doubt that, if Johnson was retroactive because of Welch, Davis will be held to be retro as well.

United States v. Davis, Case No. 18-431 (Supreme Court, June 24, 2019)

ARE 59(e) MOTIONS ‘SECOND OR SUCCESSIVE’ 2255s?

A number of lower courts have ruled that an unsuccessful § 2255 movant who files a motion to alter the judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) may be filing a second-or-successive § 2255 motion requiring prior approval.

HobsonsChoiceThis leaves § 2255 movants with a Hobson’s choice. Filing a 59(e) stays the time for filing a notice of appeal. But if the court sits on the 59(e) past the notice of appeal deadline, and then dismisses it as second-or-successive, the § 2255 movant has missed the notice of appeal deadline with the Court of Appeals. If the movant files a notice of appeal to preserve his or her rights, that nullifies the 59(e).

Right now, the only logical election is to ignore Rule 59(e) motions altogether.

Yesterday, the Court granted review in yet another “Davis” case, asking whether the 59(e) motion should be considered second or successive such that it requires the grant of permission under 28 USC § 2244. We’ll have an answer next year.

Banister v. Davis, Case No. 18-6943 (certiorari granted, June 24, 2019)

– Thomas L. Root

11th Circuit Travels Farther From Earth – Update for May 8, 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.

11TH CIRCUIT BAR FIGHT

Last week, the 11th Circuit denied en banc review of a case in which a pre-Booker Guidelines career offender sought collateral review of his sentence, based on the void-for-vagueness doctrine of Johnson v. United States. No surprise there. But a number of judges on that court, including the former acting chairman of the Sentencing Commission, Judge William Pryor, wrote 27 weird pages explaining the soundness of their denial.

earth190508Essentially, the majority said that the Guidelines were always advisory, even when they were mandatory, because the mandatory guidelines were never lawful. Therefore, a judge could have given the defendant the same high sentence even if he was not wrongly considered to be a career offender, despite the obvious fact that any judge who had done that would have been summarily reversed. If the sentence conceivably could not have changed, the majority wrote, then the ruling (in this case, Beckles) is obviously procedural, and the defendant cannot rely on it to change his sentence, because it is not retroactive.

Judge Rosenbaum and two other judges threw 36 pages back at the majority:

According to the Pryor Statement, the Booker Court did not make the Guidelines advisory because they were always advisory, since the Sixth Amendment never allowed them to be mandatory. That is certainly interesting on a metaphysical level.

But it ignores reality. Back here on Earth, the laws of physics still apply. And the Supreme Court’s invalidation of a law does not alter the space-time continuum. Indeed, there can be no dispute that from when the Guidelines were adopted in 1984 to when the Supreme Court handed down Booker in 2005, courts mandatorily applied them, as 3553(b) required, to scores of criminal defendants — including many who still sit in prison because of them.

The inmate, Stoney Lester, was lucky enough to get released on a 2241 motion by the 4th Circuit – in which circuit he was imprisoned at the time – making the 11th Circuit denial academic. But the otherworldly logic of the majority, especially from a circuit fast becoming notorious for accepting any tissue-thin reason to deny a defendant constitutional or statutory justice (see here and here, for instance), is mind-numbing.

Lester v. United States, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 12859 (11th Cir. Apr. 29, 2019)

– Thomas L. Root

Some of It’s Violent, Some of It’s Not – Update for February 5, 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.

MIXED WEEK FOR CRIMES OF VIOLENCE

Defendants arguing that prior state convictions were not crimes of violence enjoyed mixed results last week.

violent160620A 10th Circuit panel ruled in United States v. Bong that robbery under Kansas law can be accomplished with minimal force that falls short of the “violent force” required under the Armed Career Criminal Act’s elements clause. What’s more, Kansas aggravated robbery – a robbery committed by someone armed with a dangerous weapon or who inflicts bodily harm during course of a robbery – is not violent, either. Merely being “armed” with a weapon during the course of a robbery, the court said, is not sufficient to render the state offense a “violent crime” for ACCA purposes.

Things did not go so well in the 2nd Circuit. There, the court held in United States v. Thrower that 3rd degree robbery under N.Y. Penal Law 160.05 is a crime of violence for ACCA purposes. The crime requires “forcible stealing,” which is defined as common to every degree of robbery in New York State, requires use or threat of the immediate use of physical force sufficient to prevent or overcome victim resistance. “By its plain language,” the Circuit said, “the New York robbery statute matches the Armed Career Criminal Act.” The holding includes not just 3rd degree robbery, but by necessity all levels of New York robbery.

A 9th Circuit panel, however, held in United States v. Vederoff that 2nd degree assault under Wash. Rev. Code 9A.36.021(1) is overbroad when compared to the generic definition of aggravated assault, because the statute encompasses assault with intent to commit a felony. Because Washington’s 2nd-degree assault statute is indivisible, the panel could not apply the modified categorical approach, and therefore concluded that Washington second-degree assault does not qualify as a “crime of violence” under the enumerated clause of USSG 4B1.2. For the same reason, the panel held, 2nd-degree murder under Washington Code 9A.32.050 is overbroad because the statute covers felony murder. The panel found the statute indivisible, and therefore concluded 2nd-degree murder is not a “crime of violence” under the enumerated clause of USSG 4B1.2.

The 8th Circuit ruled in Mora-Higuera v, United States that a defendant’s 2255 motion, asserting a due process right to be sentenced without reference to the residual clause of USSG 4B1.2(a)(2) under the mandatory guidelines, was not dictated by Johnson v. United States, because it is “reasonably debatable whether Johnson’s holding regarding the ACCA extends to the former mandatory guidelines.” Thus, the defendant was not able to challenge his mandatory Guidelines career offender sentence on the grounds one of the prior crimes of violence was invalidated by Johnson.

vaguenes160516Finally, the 10th Circuit agreed in United States v. Pullen that “the Supreme Court has never recognized a void for vagueness challenge to the Guidelines and so Johnson neither creates a new rule applicable to the Guidelines nor dictates that any provision of the Guidelines is subject to a void for vagueness challenge.”

United States v. Bong, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 2798 (10th Cir. Jan. 28, 2019)

United States v. Thrower, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 3145 (2nd Cir. Jan. 31, 2019)

United States v. Vederoff, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 3314 (9th Cir., Feb. 1, 2019)

Mora-Higuera v. United States, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 3139 (8th Cir. Jan 31, 2019)

United States v. Pullen, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 2937 (10th Cir. Jan. 29, 2019)

– Thomas L. Root

Dimaya Redux at the Supreme Court? – Update for January 7, 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 GRANTS CERTIORARI TO 924(C) CASE

After the Supreme Court decision last spring in Sessions v. Dimaya, a lot of people doing time for using a gun during a crime of violence had hoped to attack their 18 USC 924(c) convictions by arguing the underlying crime was not violent.

gunb160201Section 924(c) outlaws using, carrying, or possessing a firearm in connection with a drug offense or “crime of violence.” “Crime of violence” is defined in subsection (c)(3)(B) to be a crime in which force is used or threatened against the person or property of another (the “elements clause”) or any a felony “that by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense,” known as the residual clause.

In Johnson v. United States and, later, in Dimaya, the Supreme Court invalidated similar residual clauses as violating due process because of vagueness.

After Dimaya, the courts of appeal entertained a spate of cases arguing that if 18 USC 16(b) (the residual clause found unconstitutional in Dimaya) was invalid, so was the identically-worded clause in § 924(c)(3)(B). Last September, the 5th Circuit became the first appellate court to decide the matter, holding in United States v. Davis that it would use the same “categorical approach” approved by the Supreme Court in Johnson and Dimaya when applying § 924(c)(3)(B) to the underlying offense. Doing so, the Court said, there was no doubt that 924(c)(3)(B) was unconstitutional.

A number of other circuits have differed with the 5th since then. Most recently, the 2nd ruled in United States v. Barrett and the 11th held in Ovalles v. United States that § 924(c)(3)(B) survives Johnson and Dimaya. Those circuits agree that, first, 18 USC 924(c) is a criminal offense that requires a determination of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt of the underlying offense by a jury in the same proceeding. For that reason, the categorical approach – which requires a reviewing court to ‘imagine’ an “idealized ordinary case of the crime” and which would render the 924(c) residual clause unconstitutional – need not be employed. Instead, those circuits used a conduct-based approach, looking at how the defendant actually committed the underlying crime instead of employing some “least violent hypothetical.” See “Circuits Busy Shutting Down 924(C) Dimaya Claims,” Newsletter, Oct. 8, 2018.

scotus161130Naturally, the government prefers the approach favored by every court except the 5th Circuit. Last Friday, the Supreme Court granted the government’s petition for certiorari to challenge the 5th Circuit’s use of the categorical approach in Davis. In that case, the 5th held the defendants’ 924(c) conviction could not stand, because it was based on conspiracy to commit a Hobbs Act robbery. A conspiracy itself does not use force or threat of force, the Circuit reasoned, so it only could be a crime of violence under 924(c)’s residual clause. Because that clause was identical to the crime of violence residual clause declared unconstitutional in Dimaya, the 5th Circuit held conspiracy to commit a crime of violence could not constitutionally support a 924(c) conviction under the residual clause in that statute, either.

It is possible there will be a decision by June, but it is more likely the case will not be argued until the fall.

United States v. Davis, Case No. 18-431 (certiorari granted Jan. 4, 2018)

– Thomas L. Root

Another Circuit Rejects Categorical Approach to Hobbs Act/924(c) Case – Update for October 24, 2018

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.

LISAStatHeader2small

1ST CIRCUIT HOLD 924(c) IMMUNE TO DIMAYA ATTACK

After Sessions v. Dimaya, a lot of people doing time for using a gun during a crime of violence have hoped to attack their 18 USC 924(c) convictions by arguing the underlying crime was not violent. Two weeks ago, we reported that the 2nd and 11th Circuits had shut down Dimaya attacks on 924(c). Last week, the 1st Circuit joined them.

gunfreezone170330Section 924(c) makes it punishable by a minimum five-year consecutive sentence, to use, carry, or possess a firearm in connection with a “crime of violence.” The “residual clause” of 924(c) defines “crime of violence” to mean a felony “that by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.” In Johnson v. United States and, later, in Dimaya, the Supreme Court invalidated similar residual clauses on vagueness grounds. 

Ishmael Douglas was convicted of a Hobbs Act robbery and a 924(c) count. He argued that under the categorical approach, which looks at the minimum conduct sufficient to violate the statute regardless of what the defendant may actually have done, his robbery could not be considered to be a crime of violence.

The 1st Circuit rejected Ishmael’s argument that 924(c)’s crime of violence definition is void for vagueness. “That is because,” the Circuit said, “the statute reasonably allows for a case-specific approach, considering real-world conduct, rather than a categorical approach, and because Douglas’s conspiracy to commit a Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a ‘crime of violence’.” Agreeing with the 2nd and 11th Circuits, the 1st held that because 924(c) “requires consideration of a contemporaneous offense rather than a prior conviction, this residual clause does not raise either the practical or the Sixth Amendment right-to-trial concerns that led the Supreme Court to adopt the categorical approach in Taylor v. United States [and] Descamps v. United States.”

United States v. Douglas, Case No. 18-1129 (1st Cir. Oct. 12, 2018)

– Thomas L. Root

LISAStatHeader2small

Supreme Court, Weary of ACCA, Ducks Trio of Cases – Update for October 22, 2018

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.

LISAStatHeader2small

SUPREME COURT REFUSES CHANCE TO APPLY JOHNSON TO MANDATORY GUIDELINES

Three years ago, the Supreme Court held in Johnson v. United States that the “residual clause” of the Armed Career Criminal Act definition of a crime of violence, which included within its sweep any crime that “otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another,” was unconstitutionally vague. Because the ACCA’s definition was identical to the Guidelines’ “career offender” definition, a lot of people thought that it was only a matter of time before “career offender” sentences would be cut as well.

thilo181022But two years after Johnson, the Supreme Court ruled in Beckles v. United States that because the Guidelines are merely advisory, a constitutional vagueness challenge to the career offender guidelines would not work. But the Guidelines have only been advisory since 2005, when United States v. Booker held that mandatory sentencing guidelines were unconstitutional. What the Beckles court did not answer was the question of whether someone whose “career offender” sentence was imposed under the pre-2005 mandatory Guidelines could successfully make a Johnson challenge. Nevertheless, Beckles seemed to presage a holding that would invalidate mandatory Guideline “career offender” sentences under Johnson as soon as the proper case presented itself to the Supremes.

Thilo Brown, as well as two other mandatory Guidelines “career offenders,” had such cases, and their petitions for writs of certiorari arrived at the high court last summer while the Justices were gone fishin’. The three cases would provide the Court a chance to answer the Johnson mandatory “career offender” question everyone thought the Justices had all but begged to have presented.

Apparently not. Last week, the Court denied certiorari to all three.

The decision not to review Thilo’s case drew a dissent from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, rare for a cert denial. She said, “This important question, which has generated divergence among the lower courts, calls out for an answer… Regardless of where one stands on the merits of how far Johnson extends, this case presents an important question of federal law that has divided the courts of appeals and in theory could determine the liberty of over 1,000 people. That sounds like the kind of case we ought to hear.”

Brown v. United States, Case 17-9276 (Supreme Court, Oct. 15, 2018)

– Thomas L. Root

LISAStatHeader2small

Enough is Still Too Much in the 6th Circuit – Update for October 16, 2018

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.

LISAStatHeader2small

WHEN TIME SERVED AIN’T GOOD ENOUGH
Sweet Brown should have been Steve's judge.
Sweet Brown should have been Steve’s judge.

Steve Mitchell did 17 years on a 21-year Armed Career Criminal Act conviction before his sentencing court, applying Johnson v. United States, held that one of his three predicate crimes of violence was not violent at all. The District Court sentenced him to time served plus three years of supervised release, and cut him loose.

Steve appealed. Yeah, you read that right. He appealed the decision that set him free. But Steve’s claim was anything but frivolous: he argued that because his conviction for being a felon in possession of a gun (18 USC 922(g)) could not be enhanced by the ACCA, the maximum sentence was only 10 years, and the District Court should have resentenced him to 10 years, not time served (which worked out to 17 years). What Steve wanted, of course, was for the District Court to recognize that he had served seven years extra, and therefore cut him loose from supervised release, too.

Last week, the 6th Circuit agreed with Steve that his “time-served” corrected sentence is unlawful. Absent the ACCA enhancement, Steve could have received only a ten-year-maximum sentence. But when the district court corrected his sentence to remove the enhancement, it gave him a “time-served” — or 17-year – sentence. The Circuit said that sentence in excess of the statutory maximum is unlawful.

doover181015The appellate court remanded Steve’s case to the district court for a re-do that recognized (1) a time-served sentence that is equivalent to a term-of-months sentence above the statutory maximum is invalid, and (2) while a district court has the discretion to select appropriate proceedings for correcting a sentence, the corrected sentence must comply with substantive and procedural reasonableness.

The Circuit did not rule on the district court’s reimposition of 3 years’ supervised release, holding that “on remand, the district court should take the opportunity to provide an appropriate rationale for its supervised release decision.”

Who knows? Maybe the sentencing court will decide that Steve has suffered enough.

United States v. Mitchell, Case No. 17-5904 (6th Cir. Oct. 10, 2018)

– Thomas L. Root
LISAStatHeader2small

Another Circuit Sets Impossible Bar for Dimaya 924(c) Claims – Update for October 8, 2018

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.

LISAStatHeader2small

CIRCUITS BUSY SHUTTING DOWN 924(C) DIMAYA CLAIMS

violence160110In the wake of Sessions v. Dimaya, a lot of people doing time for using or carrying a gun during a crime of violence have hoped to attack their 18 USC 924(c) convictions by arguing the underlying crime was not violent. Two courts of appeals – the most recent one last week – are making that pretty hard. A third circuit may be on the way there.

Section 924(c) makes it punishable by a minimum five-year consecutive sentence, to use, carry, or possess a firearm in connection with a “crime of violence.” The “residual clause” of 924(c) defines “crime of violence” to mean a felony “that by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.” In Johnson v. United States and, later, in Dimaya, the Supreme Court invalidated similar residual clauses, because what might or might not constitute a “substantial risk” was so vague that a reasonable person was unable to determine beforehand what the legal effect of conduct would be. For example, while murder certainly carried a substantial risk that physical force may be used against the victim, how about drunk driving (which, if it were the defendant’s fourth or tenth offense – depending on the state – might be a felony)?

Due to Johnson and Dimaya, all manner of offenses that may sound like they’re violent have been held not to be “crimes of violence.”

Irma Ovalles, convicted of being part of a carjacking crew that used baseball bats and assault rifles, filed a 2255 motion challenging her 924(c) conviction on the grounds that carjacking in its ordinarily sense is not a crime of violence. Last week, the 11th Circuit handed down a ruling that all but dooms her effort.

violent170315To determine whether a prior offense is a “crime of violence,” which is what Johnson and Dimaya address, a court is to use a “categorical approach,” which requires a reviewing court not to look at what the defendant actually did to, for example, assault a police officer in, say, Tennessee. Instead, the court is to ‘imagine’ an “idealized ordinary case of the crime,” and figure out whether it could be done without using violent physical force. Sure punching a cop would use violent physical force. But what if the defendant spit on the police officer instead? If Tennessee state law would permit prosecuting such an act, would that – disgusting though it might be – be held not to be “violent physical force?” If so, the predicate crime is not a “crime of violence.”

So assume the defendant were packing a gun hidden in her waistband while assaulting the officer? Or pulled the gun and pistol-whipped him? Would the fact that she reasonably been prosecuted for spitting on him instead mean that the crime was not violent, and thus render the 924(c) residual clause impermissibly vague?

categorical181008The 11th Circuit cleanly cut the “categorical approach” Gordian knot. “On the flip side,” the Court said, “Johnson and Dimaya also make clear… that if 924(c)(3)’s residual clause is instead interpreted to incorporate what we’ll call a conduct-based approach to the crime-of-violence determination, then the provision is not unconstitutionally vague.” Unlike the categorical approach, the conduct-based approach does not focus on legal definitions and “hypothetical ordinary case,” but instead looks at how the defendant actually committed the underlying crime. The 11th held that where the crime of violence being weighed is not a prior offense, but instead a contemporaneous one (and you cannot commit a 924(c) offense without simultaneously committing a crime of violence or drug trafficking offense), then the conduct-based approach had to be used under the rule of “constitutional doubt.” The rule of “constitutional doubt” holds that any reasonable construction available must be used in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality. “Accordingly,” the Circuit ruled, “we hold that 924(c)(3)(B) prescribes a conduct-based approach, pursuant to which the crime-of-violence determination should be made by reference to the actual facts and circumstances underlying a defendant’s offense.”

Under the conduct-based approach, Irma is clearly going to be in deep trouble when her case gets back to the district court. As one 11th Circuit judge asked in his concurring opinion, “How did we ever reach the point where this Court, sitting en banc, must debate whether a carjacking in which an assailant struck a 13-year-old girl in the mouth with a baseball bat and a cohort fired an AK-47 at her family is a crime of violence? It’s nuts.”

violence181008

The 4th Circuit just last month heard en banc arguments in United States v. Simms, which may go the same way as Barrett and Ovalles.

Ovalles v. United States, Case No. 17-10172 (11th Cir., Oct. 4, 2018)

United States v. Barrett, Case No. 14-2641 (2nd Cir., Sept. 10, 2018)

United States v. Simms, Case No. 15-4640 (4th Cir., decision pending)

– Thomas L. Root

LISAStatHeader2small

Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea – Update for September 17, 2018

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.

LISAStatHeader2small

TWO MORE CIRCUITS CALL MANDATORY GUIDELINE JOHNSON CHALLENGES UNTIMELY

Last week, the 6th and 9th Circuits joined the 8th Circuit in ruling that post-conviction motions filed pursuant to 28 USC 2255 by people sentenced as Guidelines career offenders under the pre-Booker mandatory guidelines are not timely.

devil180918In the 2015 Johnson v. United States decision, the Supreme Court ruled that a part of the statutory definition of “crime of violence,” the so-called residual clause that included as a violent crime any offense that carried a significant risk someone might get hurt, was unconstitutionally vague, because no one could tell for sure what kind of crime might qualify. That definition was in the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 USC 924(e)(2), but similar language appeared in the “crime of violence” definition used in Chapter 4B of the Sentencing Guidelines, which defined a “career criminal” and applied dramatically higher sentencing ranges.

Immediately, prisoners with “career offender” sentences filed motions claiming that the Johnson logic meant their Guidelines sentences were flawed. However, the Supreme Court ruled in Beckles v. United States that because the Guidelines are advisory, the constitutional concerns in Johnson did not apply to the residual clause of 4B1.2(a)(2).

The rub is that until the 2005 Supreme Court decision in United States v. Booker, the Guidelines were mandatory, not advisory. The Beckles decision specifically noted that the issue of whether Johnson might apply to someone labeled a “career offender” under the mandatory pre-Booker Guidelines was not being decided by Beckles.

Under 28 USC 2255(f)(3), a person seeking to take advantage of a change in the law to modify his or her sentence must file within a year of the decision. Within a year of Johnson, the prisoners in both the 6th and 9th Circuit cases filed 2255 motions claiming their district courts relied on the residual clause of USSG 4B1.2(a)(2) to conclude that each was a Guidelines career offender. They argued that the residual clause in 4B1.2(a)(2) was unconstitutionally vague because it was almost identical to the clause struck down in Johnson, and that Beckles did not apply to the residual clause of 4B1.2(a)(2) in the pre-Booker mandatory guidelines.

Last week, both the 6th and there 9th held that to apply Johnson to the career offender provisions of the mandatory, pre-Booker Guidelines “would be an extension, not an application, of the rule announced in Johnson.” Because the Supreme Court had not yet decided the issue it left open in Beckles, the appellate courts ruled, the 2255s were untimely and must be dismissed.

This puts people still serving long sentences under mandatory “career offender” Guidelines between the devil and the deep blue sea. The Supreme Court has sent a clear signal in Beckles that it would look at a mandatory “career offender” Johnson case differently, if only the issue were before it.  But one has to get to it in order to be decided. The cases that would qualify are so old (every one pre-2005) that the only way one can be put before a court is through a 2255 motion, and such a motion would not be timely if Johnson did not trigger the one-year clock.

escher180918

No doubt one or more of the cases already decided by the various Circuits may make it to the Supreme Court. To a layman, however, dragging prisoners through an additional four years of incarceration that virtually all commentators – including the Beckles court justices – acknowledge is unconstitutional seems to be a strange and unfair way to run a process.

A Johnson endnote: Meanwhile, the respected Supreme Court website SCOTUSBlog last week blasted the Attorney General’s claim that the recidivism rate for people released under Johnson was “staggering” blasted. Parsing various reports issued within the past year, the author finds Sessions’ claims are without foundation. Recidivism rates are no different for Johnson releasees from other inmates.

Robinson v. United States, Case No. 16-3595 (6th Cir. Sept. 7, 2018)

United States v. Blackstone, Case No. 17-55023 (9th Cir. Sept. 12, 2018)

SCOTUSBlog: Johnson v. United States: Three years out (Sept. 5, 2018)

– Tom Root

LISAStatHeader2small