Charles Douglas v. United States
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 9930
7th Cir.2017Background
- Charles Douglas pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1) and was sentenced as an Armed Career Criminal to 110 months based on at least three prior felonies characterized as "violent felonies" under the ACCA, 18 U.S.C. §924(e).
- After the Supreme Court held the ACCA residual clause void for vagueness in Johnson v. United States, Douglas moved under 28 U.S.C. §2255 to reduce his sentence, arguing the district court misapplied the ACCA elements clause to his prior Indiana convictions for Class C felony battery.
- Procedural complications (timeliness of the §2255 motion, plea-waiver) existed, but the United States waived those defenses and allowed merits review; the court therefore addressed the substantive question.
- The dispositive legal question was whether Indiana Class C felony battery (intentional touching that "results in serious bodily injury" or by deadly weapon) qualifies as a "violent felony" under the ACCA elements clause, which requires an element of the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against another.
- The Indiana statute, as written when Douglas committed the offenses, required knowing or intentional touching and elevated to Class C felony when the touch "results in serious bodily injury" (or involves a deadly weapon); the court assessed the statutory elements, not the defendant’s actual conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Indiana Class C felony battery is a "violent felony" under the ACCA elements clause | Douglas: Curtis Johnson requires the crime to involve force sufficient to cause injury and (he argues) a mens rea as to the injury itself, so Class C battery without an intent-to-injure element does not qualify | United States: The statute requires knowing or intentional touching and has an element that the touching "results in serious bodily injury," so the force necessarily is that capable of causing injury and satisfies the elements clause | Court affirmed: Class C felony battery (with serious bodily injury element) fits the ACCA elements clause; intent to use force suffices; no separate mens rea for injury required |
Key Cases Cited
- Samuel Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (held ACCA residual clause unconstitutionally vague)
- Curtis Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (2010) (defined the type of "force" covered by the elements clause)
- Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (2004) (addressed intent required to "use" force in a related statutory clause)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (explained categorical and modified categorical approaches for comparing statutory elements)
- Yates v. United States, 842 F.3d 1051 (7th Cir. 2016) (held that a state battery statute requiring force that causes bodily harm fits the elements clause)
- De Leon Castellanos v. Holder, 652 F.3d 762 (7th Cir. 2011) (recognized that knowing or intentional acts causing bodily harm meet the elements clause)
- LaGuerre v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1037 (7th Cir. 2008) (same)
- Granberry v. Greer, 481 U.S. 129 (1987) (permitting dismissal of procedurally defective collateral attacks when government does not raise procedural defenses)
- Wood v. Milyard, 566 U.S. 463 (2012) (requiring respect for formal waivers by prosecutors and wardens)