In re Mazzio
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 11839
6th Cir.2014Background
- Mazzio convicted in 1999 of possession with intent to distribute cocaine and conspiracy to distribute.
- His mandatory minimum of 240 months arose from prior felony and possession of five or more kilograms of cocaine.
- He was sentenced to two concurrent 240-month terms followed by ten years of supervised release; convictions affirmed in 2002.
- Mazzio filed a §2255 motion in 2004 alleging ineffective assistance of counsel; district court denied in 2006; COA denied and appeal dismissed in 2007.
- On October 8, 2013, Mazzio filed a motion for authorization to file a second or successive §2255 petition.
- Mazzio relies on Alleyne v. United States to argue the factual basis for his mandatory minimum was not jury-found; Alleyne held some facts are jury-found elements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Alleyne retroactive on collateral review? | Mazzio argues Alleyne should be retroactive. | Moore argues Alleyne is not retroactive. | Alleyne is not retroactive. |
| Does Alleyne establish a new rule of constitutional law retroactive on collateral review? | Alleyne creates a new retroactive rule. | Alleyne does not establish retroactivity. | Not retroactive under §2255(h)(2). |
| Does Teague demand retroactivity of Alleyne as a watershed rule? | Alleyne is a watershed procedural rule. | Alleyne is not a watershed rule. | Alleyne does not fit Teague's watershed category; not retroactive. |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (U.S. (2013)) (holding that certain facts increasing the mandatory minimum are elements)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (U.S. (1989)) (teague framework for retroactivity of new rules on collateral review)
- Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348 (U.S. (2004)) (new procedural rules generally not retroactive)
- Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (U.S. (2002)) (jury determination of facts increasing punishment; analogous reasoning used for retroactivity)
- Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545 (U.S. (2002)) (upheld judicial factfinding for increased sentences under prior framework)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. (2000)) (facts increasing maximum sentence must be submitted to jury)