Davila v. United States
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 22137
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- Jason Davila pleaded guilty to Hobbs Act conspiracy and to a § 924(c) count alleging possession of a firearm in connection with both a planned robbery and a drug-trafficking offense; a separate substantive drug count was dismissed in the plea bargain.
- District court sentenced Davila to consecutive terms: 6 months (Hobbs Act) and 60 months (§ 924(c)); Davila did not appeal.
- After Johnson v. United States invalidated the ACCA residual clause, Davila filed a § 2255 collateral attack arguing that § 924(c)(3)(B)’s residual clause (which might be needed to treat Hobbs Act conspiracy as a crime of violence) is likewise unconstitutional.
- The district court upheld the § 924(c) conviction because (1) the § 924(c) count alleged a drug-trafficking predicate as well as a Hobbs Act predicate, and (2) Davila’s guilty plea foreclosed collateral attacks on non-jurisdictional defects.
- On appeal the government argued § 924(c) creates a stand-alone crime (not merely a sentencing enhancement) and that Davila admitted a drug offense factual basis, so the conviction stands regardless of the residual-clause challenge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 924(c) conviction requires a separate conviction for the predicate crime | Davila: § 924(c) operates as a sentence-enhancement; must have conviction on predicate (he lacked a drug conviction) | Government: § 924(c) defines a stand-alone crime; no separate predicate conviction required if factual basis exists | Held: § 924(c) is a stand-alone crime; conviction may rest on admitted factual basis without separate predicate conviction |
| Whether Hobbs Act conspiracy is a "crime of violence" only via the residual clause (§ 924(c)(3)(B)) | Davila: Hobbs Act conspiracy qualifies only under the residual clause, which Johnson invalidates | Government: alternative predicate (admitted drug offense) and court need not decide classification of Hobbs Act conspiracy | Held: Court avoided deciding classification; resolved appeal on other grounds |
| Whether Johnson invalidates Davila's § 924(c) conviction collateral to a guilty plea | Davila: Johnson renders the § 924(c) conviction invalid and justifies collateral relief | Government: Guilty plea waives non-jurisdictional collateral challenges; Brady/Broce bars relief | Held: Guilty plea forecloses collateral attack based on Johnson because plea was counseled and voluntary; not a jurisdictional defect |
| Whether post-plea legal developments erase subject-matter jurisdiction and permit collateral relief | Davila: Later decisions (like Johnson) can retroactively strip jurisdiction, allowing collateral relief | Government: Subject-matter jurisdiction existed under § 3231; later merits-based rulings do not negate jurisdiction after a valid plea | Held: No jurisdictional defect; Broce/Brady preclude vacating a voluntary, counseled plea due to later legal developments |
Key Cases Cited
- Broce v. United States, 488 U.S. 563 (1989) (a counseled, voluntary guilty plea ordinarily forecloses collateral attacks except for subject-matter jurisdiction defects)
- Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970) (a plea voluntary and intelligent under then-applicable law is not rendered vulnerable by later changes in the law)
- Jackson v. United States, 390 U.S. 570 (1968) (constitutional invalidation of statutory death-penalty scheme post-plea does not permit vacating an earlier voluntary plea)
- Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678 (1946) (cases raising merits-based defenses are decided on the merits, not dismissed for lack of jurisdiction unless frivolous)
- United States v. Moore, 763 F.3d 900 (7th Cir. 2014) (discusses that § 924(c) conviction does not require separate conviction of the predicate offense)
- Young v. United States, 124 F.3d 794 (7th Cir. 1997) (treats § 924(c) as a separate offense permitting prosecution without prior predicate conviction)
- United States v. Cardena, 842 F.3d 959 (7th Cir. 2016) (held § 924(c)(3)(B) residual clause unconstitutional under Johnson)
- United States v. Martin, 147 F.3d 529 (7th Cir. 1998) (recognizes district court subject-matter jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231)