Mitchell v. United States
257 F. Supp. 3d 996
W.D. Tenn.2017Background
- Mitchell was convicted in 2000 of being a felon in possession of ammunition (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)) and sentenced in 2001 to 250 months under the ACCA enhancement (three prior predicate convictions), judgment affirmed on direct appeal.
- Over many years Mitchell litigated multiple collateral challenges; the Sixth Circuit authorized a second/successive § 2255 to pursue a Johnson claim (challenge to ACCA residual-clause) following Johnson and Welch.
- In the § 2255 proceeding Mitchell argued that, after Johnson (and related Supreme Court precedents), his prior Tennessee convictions no longer supplied the three qualifying ACCA predicates.
- The Government relied principally on three 1986 Tennessee convictions: two aggravated assaults and one third-degree burglary (Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-3-404(a)(1)).
- The court examined (1) whether the Tennessee burglary statute was divisible and whether Shepard documents established Mitchell was convicted under the building provision, and (2) whether the aggravated-assault convictions met the ACCA use-of-force requirement.
- The court concluded Mitchell lacks three valid ACCA predicates, granted the Johnson § 2255 motion, vacated the ACCA-enhanced sentence, and resentenced Mitchell to time served plus three years supervised release.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mitchell's § 2255 Johnson claim is timely and properly authorized | Johnson announced a new, retroactive rule; Mitchell sought and obtained circuit authorization within one year | Govt did not contest timeliness | Timely and authorized; § 2255(f)(3)/(h) satisfied |
| Whether Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-3-404 is divisible and whether Mitchell's burglary conviction counts as ACCA predicate | § 39-3-404 is indivisible and overbroad, so cannot be used to qualify as generic burglary post-Descamps/Mathis | § 39-3-404 is divisible; Shepard documents show Mitchell was convicted under the building provision (generic burglary) | § 39-3-404 is divisible; Shepard documents show conviction under building provision, but the building provision is overbroad (permits convictions for entries into coin receptacles etc.); therefore Mitchell's burglary conviction does not categorically qualify as ACCA predicate |
| Whether Mitchell's aggravated-assault convictions qualify under ACCA use-of-force clause | Mitchell argued at least one conviction could be based on reckless conduct and thus not qualify | Govt argued the aggravated-assault convictions involved use of force and at least two qualify; relied on post-McMurray authorities (e.g., Voisine) | At most one aggravated-assault conviction qualifies because one may be based on reckless conduct; McMurray remains controlling in Sixth Circuit for ACCA use-of-force (recklessness insufficient) |
| Whether, counting kidnapping or other priors, Mitchell still has three distinct ACCA predicates | Mitchell: even considering other priors, some convictions are same-occasion or nolle prossed and cannot be double-counted | Govt declined to rely on several additional priors (kidnapping same occasion; other burglaries nolle prossed) | Even if kidnapping qualifies, it is same occasion as an aggravated assault and cannot be counted separately; Mitchell lacks three separate ACCA predicates and is entitled to relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (invalidating ACCA residual clause)
- Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016) (Johnson made retroactive on collateral review)
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013) (limits use of fact-based inquiry; use modified categorical approach only for divisible statutes)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (distinguishes elements from means; guides divisibility analysis)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (defines generic burglary for ACCA purposes)
- United States v. Caruthers, 458 F.3d 459 (6th Cir. 2006) (addressed pre-Descamps analysis of Tennessee § 39-3-404; found statute overbroad)
- United States v. McMurray, 653 F.3d 367 (6th Cir. 2011) (held reckless conduct does not satisfy ACCA use-of-force clause)
- Voisine v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2272 (2016) (interpreted domestic-violence misdemeanor statute to reach reckless assaults; distinguished statutory contexts)