Michael Hill v. Robert Werlinger
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 17525
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Hill was convicted in 1999 in the Northern District of Illinois of cocaine base distribution, firearms during drug trafficking, and felon in possession; his prior state convictions included an attempted murder and two aggravated batteries used to classify him as a career offender and ACCA violent felony.
- Hill’s 1993 aggravated battery conviction was based on simple battery elevated to aggravated battery because of public property, resulting in a four-year sentence.
- The district court sentenced Hill to 216 months as a career offender on the drug count and 216 months as an armed career criminal for felon-in-possession, running concurrently, plus 60 months for the use-of-firearm offense, totaling 276 months.
- Hill waived the right to appeal or collaterally attack his sentence in the plea agreement.
- Hill moved through a complex procedural history: a 2000 §2255 petition was denied, later §3582 motions were denied, a 2010 §2241 petition was filed, which was transferred and reconsidered, and Hill sought authorization for a second or successive §2255 petition; he ultimately challenged whether his aggravated battery conviction constituted a violent felony under ACCA.
- The court ultimately concluded that §2255 was not inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of Hill’s detention, so the §2241 petition could not be used to undermine the ACCA-based enhancements.]
- Issues: The number of issues should be at most 5 and concise; see below.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §2241 is available via the savings clause | Hill argues §2241 is available because §2255 is inadequate. | The government contends §2255 is adequate and Hill’s claim should be raised there. | No; §2255 is adequate, so §2241 petition fails. |
| Whether Hill’s 1993 aggravated battery qualifies as a violent felony under ACCA after Johnson | Hill contends the battery offense lacks the element of violent force under ACCA. | Respondent argues the first-prong Illinois battery includes use of physical force and thus is a violent felony. | Yes; Hill’s conviction qualifies as a violent felony under ACCA. |
| Whether Johnson changed the law so that Hill could bypass §2255 | Hill relies on Johnson to argue retroactive change in law. | The change is not retroactive in a way that would bypass §2255. | No; Johnson does not render §2255 inadequate for Hill. |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 1265 (2010) (interprets physical force under ACCA as force capable of causing injury)
- Davenport, 147 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 1998) (test for inadequacy of §2255 under savings clause; three-factor test)
- Morales v. Bezy, 499 F.3d 668 (7th Cir. 2007) (novel positions do not bypass §2255 unless foreclosed by precedent)
- Nichols, ? (?) (illustrative role in Davenport on availability of §2241 via savings clause)
- Walker v. O’Brien, 216 F.3d 626 (7th Cir. 2000) (distinguishes §2255 and §2241 relief)