Robert Yates v. United States
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 21513
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- Robert Yates was sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act (18 U.S.C. § 924(e)) based on six prior convictions; three or more qualifying predicates trigger enhancement.
- After Samuel Johnson v. United States invalidated the ACCA residual clause and Welch made that ruling retroactive, Yates filed a § 2255 collateral attack arguing only two qualifying priors remain.
- The government conceded three priors were invalidated by Samuel Johnson but argued Yates’s Wisconsin battery-by-a-prisoner conviction (Wis. Stat. § 940.20(1) as then in force) still qualifies under ACCA’s elements clause.
- The issue required a categorical elements inquiry: courts must compare the statutory elements (as they existed at the time of the prior conviction) to ACCA’s elements clause, not the underlying facts.
- Wisconsin’s statutory definition of “bodily harm” included “physical pain or injury,” matching Curtis Johnson’s formulation of force sufficient for ACCA; no Wisconsin precedent was identified that upheld convictions for acts causing neither pain nor injury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Yates’s Wisconsin battery-by-prisoner conviction is a violent felony under ACCA’s elements clause | Yates: the statute did not require force as understood in Curtis Johnson; could punish non-painful touching | Government: statute and its definition of bodily harm require physical pain/injury, meeting Curtis Johnson’s force requirement | The conviction categorically qualifies under the elements clause; Yates remains an armed career criminal |
| Whether Samuel Johnson’s invalidation of the residual clause reduces Yates’s qualifying priors below three | Yates: Samuel Johnson eliminates three prior predicates, restarting § 2255(f)(3) timeliness | Government: concedes three priors are knocked out but defends the battery conviction as still qualifying | Court accepted the concession but held the battery conviction still counts, so ACCA enhancement stands |
| Proper method of inquiry for prior convictions | Yates: factual record might show non-forcible conduct | Government: apply categorical approach; look at elements in force at conviction | Court reaffirmed categorical-elements approach (Taylor/Descamps/Mathis) and prohibition on relying on underlying facts (Shepard) |
| Relevance of Wisconsin case law (Higgs) | Yates: Higgs and similar decisions show Wisconsin courts sustain convictions for acts that may not involve Curtis Johnson-type force | Government: Higgs involved actual pain/injury (urine caused irritation), consistent with Curtis Johnson | Court found Higgs consistent with Curtis Johnson and no case showed convictions for conduct causing no pain/injury; statutory elements suffice |
Key Cases Cited
- Samuel Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (invalidated ACCA’s residual clause as unconstitutionally vague)
- Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016) (held Samuel Johnson error is retroactive to cases on collateral review)
- Curtis Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (2010) (ACCA’s elements clause requires force capable of causing physical pain or injury)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (categorical approach: compare statutory elements to generic offense)
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013) (limited when courts may look beyond statutory elements)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (elements-focused inquiry; modified categorical approach constraints)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (restricts use of documents/facts in determining predicate status)
- Stanley v. United States, 827 F.3d 562 (7th Cir. 2016) (applying Samuel Johnson’s limits to residual clause in circuit)
- State v. Higgs, 230 Wis. 2d 1 (App. 1999) (upheld prison-battery conviction where thrown urine caused pain/irritation)