In Re: Sherman Fields
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 11029
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Sherman Fields is a federal death-row prisoner seeking authorization to file a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.
- Fields was convicted on seven counts, including three 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) counts; one § 924(c) conviction carried the death penalty.
- Section 924(c)(3)(B) defines “crime of violence” to include offenses that “by its nature, involve[] a substantial risk that physical force…may be used.”
- Fields argues that Johnson v. United States, which struck down a similar residual clause in the ACCA, should apply to § 924(c)(3)(B) and thus supports a successive § 2255.
- To obtain permission to file a successive § 2255, Fields must make a prima facie showing that his motion relies on (1) newly discovered evidence that would likely show innocence, or (2) a new rule of constitutional law made retroactive by the Supreme Court.
- The court found circuits are split on whether Johnson applies to § 924(c)(3)(B) and noted the Supreme Court has not resolved either (a) the applicability of Johnson to § 924(c)(3)(B) or (b) whether any such rule is retroactive on collateral review; Fields therefore failed to show entitlement to authorization.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Johnson applies to § 924(c)(3)(B) | Johnson’s vagueness holding extends to § 924(c)(3)(B)’s residual-style language | The Supreme Court has not ruled that Johnson applies to § 924(c)(3)(B); lower courts are divided | Court declined authorization because applicability is unsettled |
| Whether Johnson’s rule (if applicable) is retroactive on collateral review | If Johnson applies, it is a new rule that should be retroactive under Welch | Retroactivity on § 2255 collateral review has not been resolved by the Supreme Court for § 924(c)(3)(B) | Court denied authorization because retroactivity is unresolved |
| Whether Fields made the prima facie showing required for a successive § 2255 | Johnson-based claim satisfies the new-rule pathway for a successive petition | Fields did not establish a Supreme Court-made retroactive rule applicable to his § 924(c) convictions | Motion for authorization to file successive § 2255 denied |
| Whether circuit split affects entitlement to authorization | Circuit decisions granting permission support Fields’ position | Circuit split shows no definitive Supreme Court ruling; split undermines a prima facie showing | Denial relied on lack of Supreme Court resolution despite split |
Key Cases Cited
- Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893 (5th Cir.) (procedural standards for successive § 2255 authorization)
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (struck down ACCA residual clause as unconstitutionally vague)
- Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016) (held Johnson announced a new rule and made that rule retroactive to cases on collateral review)