Stanley Lee Hayward v. United States
706 F. App'x 646
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Hayward pleaded guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (felon in possession). Presentence report identified three prior Georgia aggravated assault convictions.
- Under the ACCA, a § 922(g) defendant with three prior "violent felonies" faces a 15-year mandatory minimum; the district court applied the ACCA enhancement and sentenced Hayward to 15 years without specifying which ACCA clause it relied on.
- Hayward filed a § 2255 motion after Johnson v. United States struck down the ACCA residual clause as unconstitutionally vague, arguing his enhancement depended on that residual clause.
- The district court denied relief, finding Hayward’s prior convictions qualified under the ACCA’s elements clause (unaffected by Johnson), and denied a COA. This court granted a COA limited to whether Hayward has three violent felonies absent the residual clause.
- On appeal, Hayward also argued one 1985 Georgia aggravated assault conviction was invalid because the indictment failed to cite the statute and set out elements; the court held he cannot collaterally attack that conviction in a § 2255 motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hayward has three qualifying ACCA violent felonies absent the residual clause | Hayward contends one or more prior Georgia aggravated-assault convictions do not qualify under the ACCA elements clause; the sentencing relied on the residual clause | Government: prior Georgia aggravated-assault convictions qualify under the elements clause; Johnson did not affect the elements clause | Court held Hayward has three qualifying violent felonies under the elements clause; ACCA enhancement stands |
| Whether Hayward can challenge the validity of his 1985 aggravated-assault conviction in this § 2255 proceeding | Hayward argues the 1985 indictment was defective and thus the conviction is invalid, so it cannot count as a predicate | Government: prior conviction is not open to collateral attack in this § 2255 motion | Court held Hayward may not collaterally attack the prior conviction in this § 2255 proceeding (Daniels bars it) |
| Whether Hayward preserved or raised the categorical-chain argument that Georgia aggravated assault never qualifies under the elements clause | Hayward raised this below but did not pursue it on appeal | Government: issues not briefed on appeal are abandoned | Court held Hayward abandoned that argument by failing to brief it on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (holding ACCA residual clause unconstitutionally vague)
- Daniels v. United States, 532 U.S. 374 (2001) (defendant may not collaterally attack a prior conviction in a later § 2255 where direct remedies were available and not pursued)
- Osley v. United States, 751 F.3d 1214 (11th Cir. 2014) (standards of review for § 2255 proceedings)
- United States v. Howard, 742 F.3d 1334 (11th Cir. 2014) (review of whether a prior conviction is a violent felony is a question of law reviewed de novo)
- Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870 (11th Cir. 2008) (issues not briefed on appeal are deemed abandoned)
- Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678 (11th Cir. 2014) (issues raised perfunctorily or without argument are abandoned)
- Beeman v. United States, 817 F.3d 1215 (11th Cir. 2016) (to succeed on a Johnson claim, movant must show it is more likely than not the residual clause produced the enhancement)