699 F. App'x 546
6th Cir.2017Background
- In 2012 Jason Curtis pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) and entered a plea agreement that waived most collateral attacks under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (except claims of ineffective assistance or prosecutorial misconduct).
- The district court classified Curtis as an Armed Career Criminal (ACCA) based on two Tennessee burglary and two Tennessee aggravated-burglary convictions, imposing a 188-month sentence (ACCA mandatory minimum 15 years applied).
- Curtis did not appeal the conviction or sentence, but filed a § 2255 motion in 2015 after Johnson v. United States invalidated the ACCA residual clause.
- The district court denied the § 2255 motion on the merits, finding all four prior convictions still qualified as ACCA predicates and expressly declined to decide whether the collateral-attack waiver barred relief.
- After the Sixth Circuit en banc held that Tennessee aggravated-burglary convictions are not ACCA violent felonies in United States v. Stitt, Curtis’s two aggravated-burglary predicates would no longer count, so his 188-month sentence exceeds the statutory maximum without the ACCA enhancement.
- The Sixth Circuit remanded for the district court to reconsider Curtis’s § 2255 motion in light of Stitt and to address the waiver issue in the first instance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Curtis may reopen his sentence under § 2255 after a plea waiver | Curtis: Stitt removes two ACCA predicates, so his 188-month sentence is now illegal and subject to § 2255 relief | Government: Curtis waived § 2255 challenges in his plea agreement; waiver bars relief | Remanded: District court should reconsider § 2255 in light of Stitt and decide waiver first |
| Whether Tennessee aggravated-burglary convictions qualify as ACCA violent felonies | Curtis: They do not after Stitt | Government: They qualify as predicates (as initially held) | Stitt controls: aggravated-burglary convictions are not ACCA violent felonies |
| Whether an ACCA-enhanced sentence that exceeds statutory maximum without ACCA can be enforced despite a plea waiver | Curtis: A sentence imposed in excess of the lawful maximum cannot be waived | Government: Waiver prevents collateral attack on sentence | Court: If ACCA predicates are eliminated and sentence exceeds lawful maximum, district court must address waiver and may vacate sentence |
| Whether the Sixth Circuit should decide waiver or remand to district court | Curtis: District court should decide waiver first | Government: Appellate resolution may be appropriate | Held: Remand for district court to reconsider § 2255 and resolve waiver in first instance |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (invalidating the ACCA residual clause)
- United States v. Stitt, 860 F.3d 854 (6th Cir. 2017) (Tennessee aggravated-burglary convictions are not ACCA violent felonies)
- United States v. Caruthers, 458 F.3d 459 (6th Cir. 2006) (addressing statutory-maximum issues when ACCA enhancement is removed)