Ernest D. Shields v. United States
885 F.3d 1020
7th Cir.2018Background
- Ernest Shields was convicted federally for being a felon in possession of a firearm and sentenced as an Armed Career Criminal (ACCA) based on prior Illinois convictions for aggravated battery, residential burglary (1994), and armed robbery (2003).
- Shields moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (collateral attack) arguing that, post-Johnson, two Illinois convictions (residential burglary and armed robbery) no longer qualify as "violent felonies" under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e).
- Johnson v. United States invalidated the ACCA residual clause, so qualifying predicates must now either: (i) have as an element the use/threatened use of physical force, or (ii) be an enumerated offense (burglary, arson, extortion, or crimes involving explosives).
- The district court denied relief, finding Illinois residential burglary fits the ACCA's enumerated "burglary" and that armed robbery contains the required force element; that decision was appealed.
- Seventh Circuit precedent (notably Smith) already held Illinois residential burglary corresponds to the generic burglary definition; prior Seventh Circuit decisions also treated Illinois robbery statutes as meeting force requirements for recidivist enhancements.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of § 2255 relief: it rejected Shields's challenges as to both residential burglary and armed robbery and held both qualify as ACCA predicates.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Illinois residential burglary qualifies as the ACCA enumerated offense "burglary" | Shields: Illinois "residential burglary" is broader than generic burglary (statutory "dwelling" includes tents, vehicles, etc.) and thus not an enumerated offense | Government: Smith controls; Illinois residential burglary aligns with federal/generic burglary as interpreted by Illinois courts | Held: Affirmed — Smith forecloses Shields; Illinois residential burglary counts as ACCA "burglary" |
| Whether Illinois armed robbery satisfies ACCA's force element (use/threat of physical force) | Shields: Illinois armed robbery requires only minimal force and therefore may not meet ACCA "use of force" element | Government: Armed robbery incorporates the robbery statute's "use of force or threatened use" language; Seventh Circuit precedent treats Illinois robbery as involving sufficient force | Held: Affirmed — Illinois armed robbery has the requisite use/threatened use of force and is a violent felony under ACCA |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (Supreme Court) (invalidating ACCA residual clause)
- Smith v. United States, 877 F.3d 720 (7th Cir.) (held Illinois residential burglary corresponds to generic burglary)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (Supreme Court) (definition of generic burglary for ACCA purposes)
- Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (Supreme Court) (categorical approach for predicate offenses)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (Supreme Court) (categorical approach and elements-vs.-means analysis)
- United States v. Shields, 789 F.3d 733 (7th Cir.) (direct appeal affirming conviction and sentence)
- United States v. Dickerson, 901 F.2d 579 (7th Cir.) (Illinois robbery requires sufficient force for recidivist enhancements)
- United States v. Chagoya-Morales, 859 F.3d 411 (7th Cir.) (Illinois aggravated robbery is a crime of violence under the Guidelines)
- United States v. Miller, 721 F.3d 435 (7th Cir.) (discussing overlap in evaluating crimes of violence and ACCA predicates)