223 F. Supp. 3d 912
E.D. Mo.2016Background
- Eddie Taylor, Jr. was convicted in 2005 of drug offenses and being a felon in possession (judgment enhanced under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA)).
- The presentence report treated Taylor as a career offender in part based on a prior Missouri second-degree burglary conviction plus convictions for unlawful use of a weapon and possession with intent to deliver.
- Taylor previously filed § 2255 relief which was denied; after Johnson v. United States was decided (invalidating the ACCA residual clause), the Eighth Circuit authorized a successive § 2255 filing.
- Taylor argues his Missouri second-degree burglary no longer qualifies as an ACCA predicate after Johnson; he concedes his other priors still count.
- The government contends (1) burglary remains an enumerated ACCA offense, so Johnson does not help Taylor, and (2) Taylor is effectively invoking Descamps/Mathis which the government says are not retroactive.
- The district court examined Missouri burglary’s elements, Mathis/Descamps guidance, Eighth Circuit precedent (Bell, Olsson), and recent district rulings, and concluded Missouri second-degree burglary is indivisible and thus not an ACCA predicate without the residual clause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Taylor’s Missouri second-degree burglary conviction qualifies as an ACCA predicate after Johnson | Taylor: burglary qualified only under the residual clause, which Johnson invalidated, so he lacks three ACCA predicates | Gov: burglary is an enumerated offense under ACCA (surviving clause), so Johnson doesn't change Taylor’s ACCA status | Court: Missouri second-degree burglary is indivisible (alternative means), so cannot be treated as generic burglary; without residual clause it is not an ACCA predicate; Taylor is entitled to resentencing |
| Whether Taylor improperly relies on Descamps/Mathis retroactively | Taylor: not seeking retroactive application of Descamps/Mathis; relying on Johnson (retroactive) and using Mathis/Descamps as interpretive guidance | Gov: Taylor’s claim attempts to obtain relief via Descamps/Mathis, which are not retroactive | Court: Johnson is the basis for relief and applying settled Supreme Court element-analysis principles (as clarified in Mathis/Descamps) is proper to decide whether the prior conviction qualifies without the residual clause |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (invalidated ACCA residual clause)
- Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016) (Johnson announced a new substantive rule retroactive on collateral review)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (modified categorical approach cannot be used if statute sets out alternative means rather than alternative elements)
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013) (explained categorical vs. modified categorical approach for predicate-offense analysis)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (defined generic burglary for ACCA comparison)
- United States v. Bell, 445 F.3d 1086 (8th Cir. 2006) (used modified categorical approach regarding Missouri burglary)
- United States v. Olsson, 742 F.3d 855 (8th Cir. 2014) (held Missouri second-degree burglary matched generic burglary for Guidelines purposes)