Michael Turner v. Warden Coleman FCI (Medium)
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 3782
11th Cir.2013Background
- Turner, a federal prisoner, challenged a district court ruling dismissing his §2241 petition as not cognizable under the savings clause of §2255(e).
- He argued intervening legal developments since his §2255 motion render §2255 inadequate to test the legality of his detention, specifically regarding the ACCA violent-felony predicate offenses.
- The district court classified Turner’s ACCA predicates as violent felonies, governing a 15-year mandatory minimum sentence, and Turner’s §2241 petition was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
- Turner’s §2255 motion had challenged his Blakely-related sentencing, which this court previously rejected; he later argued Begay-based errors in the ACCA calculation and use of police/arrest records under Shepard.
- The present opinion assesses (i) whether the savings clause permits §2241 relief for a pure Begay error, and (ii) whether Turner’s three ACCA predicates were properly classified as violent felonies.
- The court ultimately affirms, finding the predicates were properly classified as violent felonies and the §2241 petition not cognizable
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can §2241 relief be opened via the savings clause for a pure Begay error? | Turner argues intervening law makes ACCA invalid as applied. | Gilbert-Schmidt approach limits savings clause relief; claims must be raisable earlier. | No open via Begay error under current posture; Turner failed to show proper Begay-based relief. |
| Are Turner’s ACCA predicate offenses properly classified as violent felonies now? | Turner contends several predicates no longer qualify post-Begay/related decisions. | Predicates remain violent felonies under both elements and residual/categorical analyses. | Yes; all three predicates (aggravated assault/shooting into occupied building, battery on a LEO, aggravated battery) qualify as violent felonies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (U.S. 2008) (limits ACCA residual clause to similar dangerous offenses; Begay guides residual-clause scope)
- Gilbert v. United States, 640 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 2011) (savings clause does not cover sentence claims that could have been raised earlier; Begay-type issues contemplated)
- Wofford v. Scott, 177 F.3d 1236 (11th Cir. 1999) (three-factor Wofford test later repudiated as dicta; savings clause scope narrowed)
- Johnson v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 1273 (U.S. 2010) (defines violent felony element clause and affects ACCA analysis)
- Sykes v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2267 (U.S. 2011) (explains residual-clause risk framework; Begay not broad textual anchor for all offenses)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (U.S. 2005) (limits sentencing determinations to defined documents in establishing prior convictions)