Larry Cradler v. United States
891 F.3d 659
6th Cir.2018Background
- Cradler was convicted in 2008 of being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)) and sentenced under the ACCA to 222 months based on four prior violent-felony convictions. Appeal affirmed in 2011; no cert petition filed.
- In 2014 Cradler filed a § 2255 motion arguing two prior convictions no longer qualified as ACCA violent felonies after Descamps; the government later conceded one (sexual battery), leaving only Tennessee third-degree burglary at issue.
- The district court denied the § 2255 motion in December 2016, finding Tennessee third-degree burglary qualified as ACCA burglary; the court denied IFP status and a COA. This court granted a COA and IFP on appeal.
- The government argued on appeal that Cradler’s petition was untimely and procedurally defaulted; both defenses were not raised below and were therefore forfeited.
- The panel applied the categorical (and modified) approach: because the Tennessee statute (Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-904) is divisible, the court consulted the indictment to identify which statutory alternative applied and then the Tennessee Supreme Court decisions (Page and Fox) to determine the statute’s substantive scope.
- The court concluded that Tennessee third-degree burglary as interpreted by Tennessee caselaw criminalizes conduct (breaking into a receptacle after lawful entry) outside generic burglary, so it is not the enumerated ACCA burglary; the district court’s denial of § 2255 was reversed and the case remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Cradler's Argument | United States' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3) | Descamps/Johnson/Mathis announced a new right that restarts the § 2255 limitations period | § 2255 motion is untimely | Govt forfeited timeliness by not raising it below; court declines to consider forfeited defense |
| Procedural default | N/A (argues merits) | Cradler failed to raise the burglary classification on direct appeal | Govt forfeited procedural-default defense by not raising it below; court declines to consider it |
| Whether Tenn. third-degree burglary is ACCA "burglary" (categorical approach) | Cradler: Tennessee statute is broader than generic burglary and so does not qualify | United States: Third-degree burglary qualifies as ACCA burglary (district court and prior Sixth Circuit panel in Caruthers) | Using the modified categorical approach and Tennessee caselaw (Page/Fox), the statute covers lawful-entry-plus-breaking conduct beyond generic burglary; thus it is not ACCA burglary |
| Precedential effect of United States v. Caruthers | Cradler: Caruthers is no longer controlling after Mathis/Descamps | United States: Caruthers controls in this circuit | Caruthers misapplied the modified approach in light of Mathis and is no longer controlling; Caruthers' holding that § 39-904 is ACCA burglary is overruled for this purpose |
Key Cases Cited
- Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (tool and limits of the modified categorical approach)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (clarifies that the modified approach cannot be used to compare indictment facts to generic elements)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (establishes categorical approach for ACCA burglary)
- Wood v. Milyard, 566 U.S. 463 (forfeiture vs. appellate consideration of forfeited defenses)
- Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198 (timeliness and equitable considerations in § 2255 context)
- United States v. Caruthers, 458 F.3d 459 (6th Cir. 2006) (prior panel held Tenn. third-degree burglary was ACCA burglary; court holds it misapplied the modified approach)
- United States v. Mitchell, 743 F.3d 1054 (6th Cir. 2014) (interpretation of state-law elements is controlled by the state supreme court)
- Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (state-court interpretations bind federal courts when assessing statute’s scope)
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (distinguishable Supreme Court decision cited during proceedings regarding ACCA challenges)