Domonick Blair Grant v. United States
694 F. App'x 756
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Domonick Grant, a federal prisoner, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion seeking to vacate his 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) convictions tied to federal carjacking (18 U.S.C. § 2119).
- Grant argued carjacking does not qualify as a "crime of violence" under § 924(c)’s force clause and alternatively contended § 924(c)’s residual clause is unconstitutionally vague post-Johnson.
- The district court denied the § 2255 motion; Grant appealed. He also raised, for the first time on appeal, that aiding and abetting carjacking does not satisfy the force clause.
- The Eleventh Circuit reviews legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for clear error in § 2255 denials.
- The court relied on Eleventh Circuit precedent holding carjacking satisfies § 924(c)’s force clause, rendering consideration of the residual-clause vagueness argument unnecessary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether carjacking is a "crime of violence" under § 924(c)’s force clause | Grant: Carjacking does not qualify under the force clause | Government: Carjacking falls within the force clause | Court: Rejected Grant — carjacking satisfies the force clause |
| Whether § 924(c)’s residual clause is unconstitutionally vague after Johnson | Grant: Residual clause invalid under Johnson | Government: Need not decide because force clause applies | Court: Did not reach the residual-clause issue because force-clause resolution is dispositive |
| Whether aiding and abetting carjacking fails the force clause (raised on appeal) | Grant (new): Aiding and abetting carjacking is not a crime of violence | Government: (implicit) convictions valid | Court: Declined to consider — argument waived and outside COA scope |
| Whether district court erred in denying § 2255 motion overall | Grant: Convictions should be vacated for above reasons | Government: Denial proper given controlling precedent | Court: Affirmed district court denial |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Smith, 829 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 2016) (carjacking satisfies § 924(c) force clause)
- United States v. Moore, 43 F.3d 568 (11th Cir. 1994) (held carjacking is a crime of violence)
- Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015) (invalidated the ACCA residual clause; prompted challenges to other residual clauses)
- Lynn v. United States, 365 F.3d 1225 (11th Cir. 2004) (§ 2255 relief standards and review scope)