Raphael Donnell v. United States
765 F.3d 817
8th Cir.2014Background
- Donnell was convicted of conspiracy to distribute ecstasy under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846; direct appeal upheld sentence and conviction.
- PSR counted two prior felonies as predicates for career offender status: 1992 first-degree robbery and 2005 resisting arrest; only resisting arrest is at issue.
- Resisting arrest qualifies as a crime of violence; Donnell argues it was improperly counted due to grouping with non-predicate offense (careless imprudent driving) under § 4A1.2(a)(2).
- King v. United States (2010) held a related grouping should not count certain predicates; King was decided after Donnell’s direct appeal but before this court’s ruling on the § 2255 petition.
- The panel resolves whether King governs counting of grouped sentences under § 4A1.2(a)(2) in applying § 4B1.2; the court ultimately relies on Williams ( Sixth Circuit ) to reject King’s interpretation.
- The district court denied § 2255 relief; Donnell alleges ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for not raising King in light of Williams and Parker.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a predicate offense within a grouped sentence may count for career offender status. | Donnell contends King bars counting the 2005 resisting arrest as a predicate. | Donnell argues King controls; the 2005 sentence did not receive criminal-history points. | No; Williams rejects King; the predicate may count. |
| Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for not citing King after its decision and seeking supplemental briefing. | Donnell asserts ineffective assistance under Strickland. | Counsel’s inaction was not objectively unreasonable given timing and authority. | No reversible error; Pierce controls; no prejudice shown. |
| Whether King should be overruled in light of Williams and Parker. | Donnell argues Williams correctly overruled King; King misapplied lenity. | Court should follow Williams and overrule King. | Court follows Williams; King is not controlling for this issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- King v. United States, 595 F.3d 844 (8th Cir. 2010) (guidelines interpretation; grouping and career offender predicate counting; potential ineffective assistance issue)
- Pierce v. United States, 686 F.3d 529 (8th Cir. 2012) (§ 2255, ineffective assistance framework; applying Strickland to appellate counsel)
- Williams v. United States, 753 F.3d 626 (6th Cir. 2014) (rejects King’s reading of § 4A1.2(a)(2) and supports alternative counting approach)
- Peters v. United States, 215 F.3d 861 (8th Cir. 2000) (prior felonies must receive criminal history points to count as 'prior felonies' for career offender status)
- Slade v. United States, 346 F. App’x 948 (4th Cir. 2009) (unpublished; discussed as contrasting approach to grouping for criminal history points)
- Ruhaak v. United States, 49 F. App’x 656 (8th Cir. 2002) (application of rule of lenity in sentencing history points)