In Re: Andre Williams
411 U.S. App. D.C. 257
| D.C. Cir. | 2014Background
- Andre P. Williams was convicted in 1993 of RICO conspiracy and drug distribution for activity that began while he was a juvenile (turned 18 in May 1987) and continued into adulthood; he received life without parole.
- Williams filed an initial 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion in 1998, which the district court denied.
- Williams later sought authorization from the D.C. Circuit to file successive § 2255 motions based on two Supreme Court decisions: Graham v. Florida (2010) (ban on LWOP for non-homicide juveniles) and Miller v. Alabama (2012) (ban on mandatory LWOP for juveniles).
- Under AEDPA, a successive § 2255 motion requires circuit-court certification that the motion makes a prima facie showing it relies on a new, retroactive rule of constitutional law (28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3)(C), 2255(h)(2)).
- The government argued Williams’ Graham-based motion was untimely; Williams invoked the prison-mailbox rule and submitted a signed affidavit dated May 2, 2011, within the one-year period after Graham (May 17, 2010).
- The D.C. Circuit exercised its discretion to consider timeliness, accepted Williams’ prison-mailbox proof as prima facie timely (government conceded), and evaluated whether each successive motion made the required prima facie showing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Williams) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Williams’ Graham-based successive § 2255 motion is timely | Filing dated/signed May 2, 2011 and affidavit show deposit in prison mail system before the one-year deadline | Court stamp shows receipt May 24, 2012; argues untimely | Court exercised discretion, accepted mailbox affidavit as prima facie timely (government effectively conceded) |
| Whether Graham supplies a new, retroactive rule qualifying as basis for certification | Graham established a new Eighth Amendment rule prohibiting LWOP for non-homicide juveniles; retroactive on collateral review | Graham may not apply because Williams’ conspiracy continued into adulthood, so Graham might not cover "continuing" juvenile conduct | Court: Graham is a new, retroactive rule and Williams made a prima facie showing; application to this factual scenario is a merits issue for the district court |
| Whether Miller supplies a new, retroactive rule qualifying as basis for certification | Miller announced a new rule forbidding mandatory LWOP for juveniles and is retroactive; Williams got a mandatory LWOP and was sentenced for juvenile conduct | Miller may merely reaffirm Graham or apply only to mandatory-LWOP in homicide contexts; may not extend to conspiracies crossing age of majority | Court: Miller is a new rule distinct from Graham; Williams made a prima facie showing that Miller applies; merits (application to Williams’ facts) reserved for district court |
| Whether the circuit should resolve merits/timeliness at certification stage or defer to district court | Certification requires only a prima facie showing; merits and detailed timeliness/diligence review belong to the district court | Circuit may exercise discretion to consider timeliness and some threshold issues | Court: Certification requires only prima facie showing; circuit may consider timeliness and did so here, but merits questions are for the district court |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (Eighth Amendment prohibits LWOP for non-homicide juvenile offenders)
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (Eighth Amendment forbids mandatory LWOP sentences for juvenile offenders)
- In re McDonald, 514 F.3d 539 (6th Cir. 2008) (discusses certification/timeliness at appellate stage for successive habeas)
- In re Sparks, 657 F.3d 258 (5th Cir. 2011) (characterizes Graham as a new rule retroactive on collateral review)
- Huizar v. Carey, 273 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 2001) (applies prison-mailbox rule with a diligence/follow-up requirement)