Courtney Mays v. United States
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 5730
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Courtney Mays was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) for being a felon in possession and was sentenced under the ACCA, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1), to concurrent 15-year terms based on three prior convictions: two Alabama marijuana-possession convictions (serious drug offenses) and one Alabama third-degree burglary conviction (treated as a violent felony).
- Mays filed a pro se § 2255 motion and later asserted, after Descamps, that his burglary conviction did not qualify under the ACCA’s enumerated clause; after Johnson, he challenged the residual clause as well.
- The Government initially invoked the § 2255 limitations defense but later waived the statute-of-limitations and conceded Mays’s ACCA enhancement was unlawful in light of Johnson; the Government also waived non-retroactivity defenses to Descamps and Johnson for the merits.
- The Eleventh Circuit considered whether Descamps and Johnson apply retroactively on first collateral review and whether Mays’s burglary conviction qualifies as an ACCA predicate under the elements/ enumerated clause or the residual clause.
- The court concluded Descamps applies to Mays (it clarified rather than announced a new rule) and that Johnson announced a new substantive rule that is retroactive on first collateral review; under Descamps and Johnson, Mays’s burglary conviction is not an ACCA violent felony and he has at most two qualifying priors.
- The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of § 2255 relief and remanded for resentencing without the § 924(e)(1) enhancement, instructing the district court to reassess sentencing under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mays’s third-degree Alabama burglary conviction qualifies as an ACCA violent felony under the enumerated (generic) clause | Mays: Descamps shows Alabama’s burglary statute is indivisible/non-generic, so it cannot qualify under the enumerated clause | Government: Prior precedent treated Alabama burglary as qualifying; also waived non-retroactivity but initially argued time-bar and that residual clause could save sentence | Held: Descamps (and Elec. Circuit precedent Howard) applies — Alabama third-degree burglary is indivisible and not a generic enumerated offense, so enumerated clause does not apply |
| Whether the ACCA residual clause can sustain Mays’s enhancement after Johnson | Mays: Johnson invalidates the residual clause as unconstitutionally vague; thus his burglary cannot be a predicate under the residual clause | Government: Initially argued pre-Johnson precedent allowed residual-clause qualification; later conceded Johnson applies and waived non-retroactivity | Held: Johnson announced a new substantive rule and applies retroactively on first collateral review; residual clause cannot be used to qualify Mays’s burglary conviction |
| Whether Descamps and Johnson apply retroactively to a first § 2255 petition filed after Mays’s sentence became final | Mays: Both cases should apply; Descamps clarifies statutory interpretation and Johnson is substantive and retroactive | Government: Initially raised § 2255(a) time-bar and urged non-retroactivity; later waived those defenses and conceded relief | Held: Descamps is a clarification (not a new rule) and applies; Johnson is a new substantive rule that is retroactive on first collateral review under Teague principles, so both apply |
| Whether Mays is entitled to vacatur and resentencing without the ACCA enhancement | Mays: With burglary not a predicate, he lacks three qualifying priors and his § 924(e)(1) sentence is illegal | Government: Ultimately agreed relief appropriate; earlier invoked procedural defenses | Held: Mays’s § 924(e)(1) sentence is illegal; vacated and remanded for resentencing without the ACCA enhancement |
Key Cases Cited
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013) (clarified use of categorical/modified categorical approaches and divisibility requirement for enumerated offenses)
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (held ACCA residual clause unconstitutionally vague)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (framework for retroactivity of new rules on collateral review)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) (new substantive rules must be given retroactive effect on collateral review)
- In re Rivero, 797 F.3d 986 (11th Cir. 2015) (held Johnson is a new substantive rule; distinguished limits of § 2255(h) for second-or-successive petitions)
- United States v. Howard, 742 F.3d 1334 (11th Cir. 2014) (held Alabama third-degree burglary statute is indivisible and not a generic burglary for ACCA enumerated-clause purposes)