Stewart v. United States
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 14386
| 11th Cir. | 2011Background
- Stewart pleaded guilty in 2002 to distributing cocaine base and was sentenced as a career offender to 360 months plus five years' supervised release.
- His direct appeal was dismissed in 2003 due to an appeal-waiver provision; judgment became final in 2003.
- Between 2004 and 2008 Stewart sought state-court vacatur of his predicate state convictions, which culminated in vacatur on July 2, 2008.
- In August 2008 Stewart filed a second pro se § 2255 motion asserting a Johnson-based challenge to his career-offender enhancement.
- District court dismissed the motion as second or successive or, alternatively, due to lack of diligence; the Eleventh Circuit granted a COA on the issue.
- The issue on appeal is whether the 2008 § 2255 motion is 'second or successive' under AEDPA, given the later vacatur of predicate state convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Stewart's 2008 § 2255 motion is 'second or successive' under AEDPA. | Stewart | Government | Not second or successive; Johnson claim ripe after vacatur |
| Does Johnson v. United States create a new basis for relief when predicate convictions are vacated? | Stewart | Government | Vacatur of predicate convictions creates a new basis for § 2255 claim |
| How should AEDPA's gatekeeping treat a later claim arising only after vacatur of predicates? | Stewart | Government | Leal Garcia framework applies: later claims ripening after prior petition may be non-successive |
| Should Panetti and related authorities require unripe claims to be raised in the first petition to avoid misuse of the writ? | Stewart | Government | Panetti supports not requiring premature claims to be raised; not to penalize ripening claims later |
| What is the proper remedy when a Johnson claim becomes viable after vacatur? | Stewart | Government | Remand for resentencing; not barred by AEDPA gatekeeping; due process and efficiency considerations favor remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 544 U.S. 295 (U.S. 2005) (state vacatur of predicate convictions creates a new § 2255 basis)
- Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930 (U.S. 2007) (rejects literal interpretation of 'second or successive' to bar unripe claims)
- Leal Garcia v. Quarterman, 573 F.3d 214 (5th Cir. 2009) (development after prior petition may render later petition non-successive)
- Custis v. United States, 511 U.S. 485 (U.S. 1994) (habeas relief requires success at state level first)
- Daniels v. United States, 532 U.S. 374 (U.S. 2001) (underlying conviction challenged before federal relief)
- Tompkins v. Secretary, Dept. of Corrections, 557 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2009) (Panetti narrow application; distinguishes Ford-based claims)
- McIver v. United States, 307 F.3d 1327 (11th Cir. 2002) (defer to general de novo review of AEDPA questions)
- In re Cain, 137 F.3d 234 (5th Cir. 1998) (discusses non-successive claims in certain contexts)