617 F. App'x 618
8th Cir.2015Background
- May 13, 2006: officers, with consent from Griffin’s girlfriend, found .45-caliber magazines and ammunition in her apartment; Griffin was later arrested.
- Detective Taraski interviewed Griffin in a breathalyzer holding area, testified Griffin was given Miranda warnings, signed a waiver, and admitted ownership of the ammunition. No audio/video of the interview was preserved.
- Griffin pleaded not guilty, waived a jury trial, and was convicted at a bench trial; the court relied primarily on Taraski’s testimony.
- At sentencing the court applied the ACCA, counting three prior convictions (first-degree domestic assault, second-degree domestic assault, and possession with intent to distribute) as predicates and imposed an enhanced 327-month sentence.
- Griffin filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition arguing (1) ineffective assistance because counsel did not move to suppress Taraski’s testimony and (2) two prior convictions (second-degree domestic assault and the drug conviction) do not qualify as ACCA predicates. The district court denied relief; the Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not moving to suppress Detective Taraski’s testimony | Griffin: counsel was deficient for failing to move to suppress the officer’s testimony about his confession (he asserts Miranda was not read and he asked for a lawyer) | Government: counsel made a reasonable strategic choice in a bench trial to attack credibility at trial; a signed Miranda waiver existed | Court: No ineffective assistance — counsel’s decision was a reasonable strategic choice and suppression would not have been successful given the waiver |
| Whether Griffin’s second-degree domestic assault and possession-with-intent convictions qualify as ACCA predicates | Griffin: second-degree assault and the drug conviction should not count as violent felony/serious drug offense | Government: assault conviction fell under subsection criminalizing attempted/used force; drug conviction was a Class B felony with a statutory maximum meeting ACCA’s definition | Court: Both qualify — the indictment shows conviction under subdivision criminalizing attempted use of force (violent felony); the drug conviction is a serious drug offense because the statutory maximum meets ACCA’s threshold |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance two-part test)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (permissible documents under the modified categorical approach)
- Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (modified categorical approach guidance for divisible statutes)
- Rodriguez v. United States, 553 U.S. 377 (statutory maximum, not actual sentence, governs ACCA serious drug offense analysis)
- United States v. Jones, 574 F.3d 546 (8th Cir. precedent on § 565.073.1(1) qualifying as a violent felony)