Morris v. United States
827 F.3d 696
7th Cir.2016Background
- Katrell Morris seeks authorization under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) to file a successive § 2255 motion challenging his sentence as an Armed Career Criminal (ACCA).
- Morris was sentenced under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) and invokes Johnson v. United States, which invalidated ACCA’s residual clause and has been made retroactive by Welch.
- He challenges only one of three predicate convictions: Illinois attempted robbery (720 ILCS 5/8-4(a), 18-4(a) (1997)).
- The government cites a nonprecedential Seventh Circuit decision treating attempted robbery as a crime of violence under a Guidelines elements clause, but that decision lacks detailed analysis of Illinois case law.
- The panel finds Morris made a prima facie showing entitling him to authorization and therefore grants the application, transferring the papers to the district court to consider the § 2255 claim and defenses.
- Concurring opinion: Judge Hamilton explains reasons for granting authorization (statutory 30-day limit, low prima facie standard) but expresses skepticism that attempted robbery will ultimately qualify as an ACCA violent felony; he outlines statutory and practical arguments on attempt offenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Morris may file a successive § 2255 to challenge ACCA predicate based on Johnson/Welch | Johnson retroactivity (Welch) may invalidate one predicate (attempted robbery); prima facie showing satisfied | Government contends attempted robbery qualifies as a violent felony under the elements clause (attempt to commit violent crime = attempt to use force) | Authorized transfer; district court may consider § 2255 claim |
| Whether attempted robbery under Illinois law categorically qualifies as a violent felony under ACCA elements clause | Attempt crime requires intent and substantial step; may lack actual/threatened physical force so might not meet elements clause | An attempt to commit a crime that would be violent necessarily includes attempted use or threat of force, and thus counts | Grant to allow district court development; concurrence skeptical but supports authorization |
| Proper interpretive approach to attempt crimes under ACCA | Examine state caselaw to see how attempt statute is applied to particular offenses | Government argues statutory elements approach treats attempt as attempt to commit each element of the completed offense | Panel: need detailed state-law analysis; unpublished Guideline decision insufficient; remand for district court consideration |
| Standard for granting § 2244(b)(3) authorization post-Johnson | Prima facie showing suffices to authorize successive § 2255 | Opposing defenses to be addressed at district court | Authorization granted based on prima facie standard and statutory time constraint |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (ACCA residual clause unconstitutional)
- Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016) (Johnson announced retroactively applicable rule)
- James v. United States, 550 U.S. 192 (2007) (analysis of attempt offenses requires examining how state law defines attempt in context of particular crime)
- United States v. Collins, 150 F.3d 668 (7th Cir. 1998) (look to state caselaw to determine whether attempt statute encompasses violent felony elements)
- United States v. Davis, 16 F.3d 212 (7th Cir. 1994) (Illinois attempt-burglary analysis requires examining state law to assess dangerous proximity standard)
- United States v. Muratovic, 719 F.3d 809 (7th Cir. 2013) (example of finding attempt facts supporting violent felony characterization)