930 F.3d 978
8th Cir.2019Background
- In 2013, Mario Ronrico Smith was convicted of possession with intent to distribute cocaine (Count 1), using/carrying a firearm during a drug trafficking crime (Count 2), and felon in possession of a firearm (Count 3).
- District court classified Smith as an Armed Career Criminal (ACCA) on Count 3 and as a career offender under the advisory Guidelines on Counts 1 and 2, producing a Guidelines range of 420 months to life; the court imposed concurrent 220-month sentences on Counts 1 and 3 and a consecutive 60-month sentence on Count 2.
- On direct appeal Smith did not raise sentencing issues; this court affirmed. United States v. Smith, 789 F.3d 923 (8th Cir. 2015).
- After the Supreme Court decided Johnson v. United States (ACCA residual clause void for vagueness), Smith filed a timely 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion arguing his fleeing-from-police convictions no longer qualified as violent felonies/crimes of violence and that appellate counsel was ineffective for not anticipating Johnson.
- The district court stayed proceedings pending Beckles v. United States (holding the advisory Guidelines’ residual clause not subject to vagueness challenge); after Beckles the government conceded Count 3 ACCA enhancement was invalid under Johnson but opposed relief because Beckles foreclosed attacking the advisory career-offender finding and because the concurrent sentence doctrine meant relief would not reduce Smith’s time.
- The district court denied § 2255 relief (no ineffective assistance; concurrent sentence doctrine barred relief), and this panel affirms; a dissent would vacate Count 3 and remand for resentencing because resentencing might reduce Smith's imprisonment under current Guidelines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Smith) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether concurrent sentence doctrine bars § 2255 relief | Vacating ACCA sentence should lead to vacating the career-offender sentence and full resentencing; sentences are interdependent | Reducing Count 3 would not change total time because Count 1 and 2 sentences remain valid; doctrine allows denying relief | Affirmed: concurrent sentence doctrine applies; Count 1 sentence stands because Beckles forecloses challenge |
| Whether sentencing package doctrine requires full resentencing after partial invalidation | Resentencing could apply current Guidelines (no career-offender residual clause) and reduce total term; prejudice exists | No abuse: record shows court would have imposed same 220-month concurrent term based on § 3553(a) factors; no need for full resentencing | Court declines full resentencing; no abuse of discretion in denying complete resentencing |
| Whether appellate counsel was constitutionally ineffective for not predicting Johnson | Counsel should have noted pending Supreme Court review and raised related sentencing issue on direct appeal | Failure to anticipate an as-yet-unarticulated change in law is not deficient performance under Strickland | Affirmed: no ineffective assistance; counsel not required to foresee Johnson |
| Whether Johnson invalidates Smith's ACCA enhancement and requires relief | Johnson voids ACCA residual clause so Count 3 enhancement invalid | Government concedes Count 3 ACCA enhancement invalid under Johnson but argues relief is nugatory due to concurrent sentence doctrine | Count 3 ACCA enhancement is invalid, but § 2255 relief denied because vacating it would not shorten Smith's imprisonment given remaining valid sentences |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Smith, 789 F.3d 923 (8th Cir. 2015) (prior direct-appeal decision affirming convictions and sentence)
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (ACCA residual clause held unconstitutionally vague)
- Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017) (advisory Guidelines’ residual clause not subject to vagueness challenge)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Eason v. United States, 912 F.3d 1122 (8th Cir. 2019) (concurrent sentence doctrine permits declining review when relief would not reduce time served)
- Olunloyo v. United States, 10 F.3d 578 (8th Cir. 1993) (formulation of concurrent sentence doctrine)
- McArthur v. United States, 850 F.3d 925 (8th Cir. 2017) (sentencing package doctrine described when partial vacatur may require reconfiguration)
- Wright v. United States, 902 F.3d 868 (8th Cir. 2018) (career-offender error harmless when district court relied on § 3553(a) independent of Guidelines)
- Dace v. United States, 842 F.3d 1067 (8th Cir. 2016) (harmlessness of career-offender error when § 3553(a) factors controlled)
- Allen v. United States, 829 F.3d 965 (8th Cir. 2016) (failure to foresee a future change in law not deficient appellate performance)
- Walker v. United States, 810 F.3d 568 (8th Cir. 2016) (similar denial of ineffective-assistance claim where counsel could not be faulted for not predicting a change in law)
- Tidwell v. United States, 827 F.3d 761 (8th Cir. 2016) (upon successful § 2255 attack, district court may vacate entire sentence so it can reconfigure the sentencing plan)