Harrington v. United States
689 F.3d 124
| 2d Cir. | 2012Background
- Harrington is imprisoned under ACCA with a 15-year mandatory minimum after pleading guilty to felon-in-possession.
- He previously had Connecticut first-degree robberies, unlawful restraint, a narcotics sale conviction, and other prior offenses.
- At sentencing, the district court held Alford pleas qualified as ACCA predicates and imposed the 15-year term.
- Harrington filed a §2255 motion alleging ineffective assistance of sentencing/apellate counsel and challenging ACCA predicates; district court denied.
- The Second Circuit held first-degree unlawful restraint qualifies as a violent felony under the ACCA residual clause, thus sustaining the minimum term and rejecting the §2255 claims.
- The court declined to address the residual-clause vagueness claim on appeal because it was not preserved in the district court certificate of appealability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not challenging ACCA predicates | Harrington | Harrington | No merit; ineffective-assistance claim fails under Strickland. |
| Whether Connecticut first-degree unlawful restraint is an ACCA violent felony predicate | Harrington | United States | Harrington cannot show prejudice; restraint qualifies under the residual clause. |
| Whether the narcotics sale conviction could subject Harrington to ACCA predicates | Harrington | United States | Harbored predicates were sufficient; even if not, harmless error given other predicates. |
| Whether the ACCA residual clause is unconstitutionally vague | Harrington | United States | Not decided on the merits; left preserved-vagueness issues not reviewed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (U.S. 2008) (limits residual-clause scope to risk-aligned crimes)
- Chambers v. United States, 555 U.S. 122 (U.S. 2009) (rejects narrow interpretation for certain offenses lacking mens rea)
- Sykes v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2267 (U.S. 2011) (rejects Begay-like two-step analysis for intentional crimes; risk-level standard controls)
- James v. United States, 550 U.S. 192 (U.S. 2007) (explains residual clause risk assessment framework)
- Parisi v. United States, 529 F.3d 134 (2d Cir. 2008) (ineffective-assistance claims may be raised on collateral review)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishes two-prong test for ineffective assistance)