894 F.3d 891
8th Cir.2018Background
- Cravens pleaded guilty in 2010 to two firearms counts: one count charged under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) with an ACCA enhancement (Count Two), and a second count without enhancement.
- At sentencing the district court relied on three prior convictions (1998 Illinois burglary; 2004 Missouri assault on an officer; 2008 Missouri burglary) to apply the ACCA, yielding a 216-month sentence on Count Two (concurrent 120 months on the other count).
- After Johnson v. United States, Cravens moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, arguing that two of the predicate convictions (Illinois burglary and Missouri second-degree burglary) do not qualify as ACCA violent felonies, so he lacked three predicates.
- Subsequent Eighth Circuit decisions (Byas and Naylor) held Illinois burglary and Missouri second-degree burglary are not ACCA violent felonies; the government concedes Cravens lacks three predicates.
- The district court denied § 2255 relief; the Eighth Circuit reverses, holding Cravens was sentenced in excess of the statutory maximum (216 months vs. 120 months) and that the constitutional error is not harmless on this record.
Issues
| Issue | Cravens' Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cravens was improperly sentenced as an armed career criminal because two predicate convictions are not ACCA violent felonies | Illinois burglary and Missouri second-degree burglary do not qualify as ACCA violent felonies; thus Cravens lacked three predicates | Initially defended ACCA enhancement; later conceded after controlling circuit precedent | Court: Cravens lacked three qualifying priors; ACCA enhancement was improperly applied |
| Whether the § 2255 claim is cognizable despite possibility the same aggregate sentence could be imposed by running counts consecutively | Constitutional error from Johnson renders sentence unauthorized and cognizable under § 2255 | Argued sentence could be reimposed consecutively, so no relief warranted (relying on Sun Bear logic) | Court: Claim is cognizable because error was constitutional; Sun Bear distinguishable |
| Whether the constitutional sentencing error was harmless because the district court could have imposed the same 216-month term consecutively | Cravens: cannot show the court would have imposed consecutive sentences or the same total; enhancement affected guideline range and supervised release term | Govt: district court could have ordered consecutive terms to reach 216 months, making error harmless | Court: Error not harmless — record does not show with fair assurance the court would have imposed same sentence absent ACCA; resentencing required |
| Relief required: vacatur and resentencing? | Seek vacatur and resentencing without ACCA enhancement | Argued no resentencing necessary if same total could be imposed consecutively | Court: Reverse and remand for resentencing without § 924(e) enhancement; expresses no view on new sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (holding ACCA residual clause unconstitutionally vague)
- United States v. Byas, 871 F.3d 841 (8th Cir. 2017) (Illinois burglary is not an ACCA violent felony)
- United States v. Naylor, 887 F.3d 397 (8th Cir. 2018) (Missouri second-degree burglary is not an ACCA violent felony)
- Sun Bear v. United States, 644 F.3d 700 (8th Cir. 2011) (denying § 2255 relief where same aggregate sentence could be reimposed; distinguishable here)
- Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993) (standard for harmless constitutional error in collateral review)
- O'Neal v. McAninch, 513 U.S. 432 (1995) (evenly balanced record on prejudice defeats harmless-error finding)