913 F.3d 765
8th Cir.2019Background
- Adam Winarske pleaded guilty in 2012 to being a felon in possession of a firearm; the PSR listed multiple prior felonies including five North Dakota burglary convictions and the district court applied the ACCA 15‑year mandatory minimum.
- At original sentencing Winarske did not object to the ACCA enhancement; the Eighth Circuit affirmed his conviction in 2013.
- Winarske filed a § 2255 motion in 2015 arguing his North Dakota burglary convictions were not generic burglary under Descamps; the district court denied relief and Winarske did not appeal that denial.
- In 2016 Winarske obtained authorization to file a successive § 2255 based on Johnson (invalidating the ACCA residual clause) and then argued Mathis and Descamps showed North Dakota burglary is broader than generic burglary because it criminalizes entry into "occupied structures," including certain vehicles.
- The district court denied the successive motion on the merits and issued a COA; on appeal the Eighth Circuit declined to reach the enumerated‑offenses argument and affirmed the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Winarske’s North Dakota burglary convictions qualify as ACCA "burglary" (enumerated offense) | North Dakota statute criminalizes entry into "occupied structure," including vehicles, so it is broader than generic burglary per Mathis/Descamps | ACCA residual‑clause decision in Johnson does not affect the enumerated‑offenses analysis; Mathis/Descamps do not supply a new retroactive rule; claim was previously presented and denied | Denied: court refused to reach the merits and affirmed denial of the successive §2255 motion |
| Whether Johnson provides a basis to reopen the enumerated‑offenses claim | Johnson invalidated the residual clause, so Winarske can challenge ACCA enhancement | Johnson does not implicate the enumerated‑offenses clause and thus has no nexus to this claim | Denied: Johnson’s new rule lacks nexus to enumerated‑offense challenge |
| Whether Mathis/Descamps constitute a new retroactive rule for successive §2255 | Mathis/Descamps reinterpret the categorical approach and thus create a new basis | Mathis/Descamps are applications of existing categorical‑approach doctrine, not new retroactive rules under §2255(h)(2) | Denied: Mathis/Descamps are not "new rules" made retroactive by the Supreme Court |
| Whether the successive petition is barred because the same claim was previously presented | The court should reconsider in light of intervening Supreme Court decisions | A successive petition that presents a claim already presented must be dismissed under §2244(b)(1) absent a qualifying new rule | Dismissed: prior denial of the same claim bars the successive petition |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (defining "generic" burglary for ACCA purposes)
- Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (clarifying the categorical approach to prior convictions)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (addressing elements vs. means under the categorical approach)
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (invalidating the ACCA residual clause as void for vagueness)
- Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (holding Johnson applies retroactively on collateral review)
- United States v. Stitt, 139 S. Ct. 399 (recent decision touching on scope of burglary definitions)