921 F.3d 1306
11th Cir.2019Background
- Stoney Lester was sentenced in 2004 as a career offender under the mandatory Sentencing Guidelines to 262 months based in part on a prior "walkaway escape" conviction that the Eleventh Circuit then treated as a "crime of violence."
- The career-offender Guideline used a residual-clause definition mirroring the ACCA residual clause ("otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another").
- Johnson v. United States invalidated the ACCA residual clause as unconstitutionally vague; Welch held Johnson is retroactive on collateral review; Chambers and later decisions undermined counting walkaway escape as a crime of violence.
- The Eleventh Circuit in In re Griffin held: (1) the Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to vagueness challenges, and (2) even if they were, Johnson’s rule does not apply retroactively to pre-Booker career-offender sentences.
- Judge William Pryor (concurring in the denial of rehearing en banc) defends Griffin’s second holding: pre-Booker career-offender sentences are within statutory ranges and thus a new Johnson-based rule would be procedural, not substantive, so not retroactive under Teague.
- Judges Martin, Rosenbaum, and Jill Pryor (in separate statements) argue Griffin was wrong: (a) mandatory Guidelines were like statutes and therefore susceptible to vagueness challenges; and (b) Johnson’s substantive rule should apply retroactively to pre-Booker career-offender sentences because the mandatory application produced legally unauthorized elevated mandatory-minimum ranges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the (pre-Booker) mandatory Sentencing Guidelines are subject to vagueness challenges | Lester: Mandatory Guidelines are equivalent to statutes/regulations and must satisfy Due Process vagueness constraints | Eleventh Circuit (Griffin/Pryor): Post-Booker understanding makes Guidelines advisory; advisory Guidelines are not subject to vagueness challenges | Griffin held the Guidelines are not susceptible to void-for-vagueness attacks (Judge Martin dissents) |
| Whether Johnson’s rule applies retroactively to pre-Booker career-offender sentences | Lester: Johnson is substantive (like ACCA) and Welch makes it retroactive; mandatory application produced higher mandatory-minimum ranges and thus jurisdictional defect | Pryor: Sentences imposed were within statutory ranges; a remand would permit the same sentence, so rule would be procedural and not retroactive under Teague | The court declined en banc rehearing; majority left Griffin intact (denying retroactive relief in Eleventh Circuit) |
| Whether Booker’s change (mandatory → advisory) should be treated as altering the law for retroactivity analysis | Lester: Booker changed judicial application but did not nullify the reality that courts applied mandatory Guidelines that fixed punishments; retroactivity should account for that effect | Pryor: Booker merely corrected judicial doctrine—Guidelines were never "really" mandatory as a matter of law—so pre-Booker sentences were within statutory authority | Disagreement among judges: Pryor views Booker as doctrinal correction making pre-Booker sentences non-substantive errors; Martin/Rosenbaum reject that view |
| Proper scope of the substantive exception to Teague | Lester: Substantive exception covers rules that made earlier punishments beyond the authority of law (including mandatory-minimum elevation by an unconstitutionally vague guideline) | Pryor: Substantive exception applies only when the sentence imposed was outside statutory authorization; pre-Booker career-offender sentences were within statutory ranges | Court did not overrule Griffin; separate opinions set forth the split reasoning |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (invalidating ACCA residual clause as unconstitutionally vague)
- Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016) (holding Johnson is retroactive on collateral review)
- Booker v. United States, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (holding the mandatory Guidelines scheme incompatible with the Sixth Amendment and making the Guidelines advisory)
- Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017) (holding the advisory Guidelines are not subject to vagueness challenges)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (establishing modern retroactivity framework for collateral review)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) (explaining historical rationale for retroactivity of substantive rules tied to jurisdictional defect)
- Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371 (1879) (early habeas jurisprudence holding unconstitutional statutes render convictions void)
- United States v. Matchett, 802 F.3d 1185 (11th Cir. 2015) (holding advisory Guidelines are not subject to vagueness challenges)
- In re Griffin, 823 F.3d 1350 (11th Cir. 2016) (per curiam) (holding mandatory Guidelines not subject to vagueness challenges and Johnson not retroactive to pre-Booker career-offender sentences)