In re Robinson
822 F.3d 1196
11th Cir.2016Background
- Troy Robinson sought authorization to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging his ACCA-enhanced sentence based on Johnson v. United States.
- ACCA imposes a 15-year minimum where a defendant has three prior convictions that qualify as "violent felonies" or "serious drug offenses," defined by an elements clause, an enumerated-crimes clause, and a residual clause.
- Johnson held ACCA’s residual clause unconstitutional; the question was whether that decision could support a successive § 2255 filing.
- The Eleventh Circuit had previously held that Johnson was not made retroactive for collateral review in In re Franks, but the Supreme Court’s decision in Welch later declared Johnson retroactive.
- Robinson’s ACCA sentence rested on two serious drug convictions and two Florida convictions for armed robbery and aggravated battery with a firearm.
- The court concluded that, even without the residual clause, Robinson’s Florida armed robbery and aggravated battery convictions qualify under ACCA’s elements clause, so he cannot benefit from Johnson.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Johnson supplies a basis for a successive § 2255 under § 2255(h)(2) | Johnson invalidates ACCA residual clause and thus supports Robinson’s challenge to his ACCA enhancement | Franks had held Johnson not made retroactive; but Supreme Court in Welch made Johnson retroactive | Johnson is retroactive (Welch), so Franks no longer controls — but outcome depends on whether Robinson still has three predicates |
| Whether Robinson’s prior convictions remain ACCA predicates without the residual clause | Robinson’s convictions may rely on the residual clause and thus be invalidated by Johnson | Robinson’s Florida armed robbery and aggravated battery with a firearm qualify under the elements clause as violent felonies | The Florida armed robbery and aggravated battery convictions qualify under the elements clause; Robinson still has three ACCA predicates |
| Whether the sentence should be vacated or leave to file granted | Robinson seeks authorization to file a successive § 2255 to challenge his ACCA enhancement | Government contends the predicates are valid and authorization should be denied | Application to file second or successive § 2255 denied because sentence is valid absent the residual clause |
| Applicability of Johnson to advisory Sentencing Guidelines § 4B1.2 | (generally asserted by some petitioners) Johnson should apply to identical language in § 4B1.2 | Eleventh Circuit precedent (Matchett) held Johnson doesn't apply to advisory guidelines | Court notes Matchett but expresses view it was wrongly decided and other circuits disagree; however Robinson’s case turns on ACCA, so court did not apply § 4B1.2 issue here |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015) (held ACCA’s residual clause unconstitutional)
- Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016) (held Johnson is retroactive to cases on collateral review)
- In re Franks, 815 F.3d 1281 (11th Cir. 2016) (Eleventh Circuit previously held Johnson not retroactive for successive § 2255 filings)
- United States v. Lockley, 632 F.3d 1238 (11th Cir. 2011) (Florida armed robbery qualifies under ACCA elements clause)
- United States v. Hill, 799 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 2015) (aggravated battery with a firearm qualifies under ACCA elements clause)
- United States v. Matchett, 802 F.3d 1185 (11th Cir. 2015) (held Johnson did not apply to advisory Guidelines § 4B1.2)
- Dodd v. United States, 545 U.S. 353 (2005) (statute of limitations principles for refiling deadline on successive applications)