United States v. Calvin Bankhead
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 2603
| 8th Cir. | 2014Background
- Calvin Bankhead pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)).
- The written plea agreement stated a statutory maximum of 120 months; the PSR later revealed a 1990 juvenile adjudication for Illinois armed robbery.
- The probation office treated that juvenile adjudication as an ACCA predicate, which, with two other predicates, triggered the ACCA 15-year mandatory minimum (180 months).
- At sentencing the district court declined to honor the original plea agreement, held an evidentiary hearing, applied the modified categorical approach to Illinois charging documents, and found Bankhead had carried a .38-caliber revolver.
- Bankhead appealed, arguing (1) the documents were too sparse to show a qualifying weapon and (2) his Rule 11 plea colloquy failed to inform him of the ACCA exposure; thereafter the parties agreed Descamps governed the legal question.
- The Eighth Circuit held the Illinois statute’s "dangerous weapon" element is indivisible and broader than the ACCA list (firearm, knife, destructive device); under Descamps the modified categorical approach was inapplicable and the juvenile adjudication is not an ACCA predicate. The sentence was reversed and the case remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Illinois juvenile armed-robbery adjudication qualifies as an ACCA "violent felony" predicate via the modified categorical approach | Bankhead: the adjudication does not establish the specific ACCA-listed weapon; Descamps bars using Shepard documents because the statute is indivisible | Government: charging documents show a .38 revolver was carried; modified categorical approach can identify the weapon and trigger ACCA | The statute is indivisible re: type of weapon; Descamps precludes the modified categorical approach; the adjudication is not an ACCA predicate |
| Whether the district court permissibly relied on Shepard-type documents to find a firearm was used | Bankhead: the documents were sparse/unclear and insufficient to meet ACCA predicate standard | Government: Shepard documents (charging papers) established the weapon was a .38 revolver | Court: even if documents suggested a firearm, Descamps forbids that inquiry when the statute is indivisible, so reliance on those documents is improper |
| Whether Rule 11 plea colloquy error or plea-withdrawal issues require reversal | Bankhead: he was not advised of the ACCA maximum/mandatory minimum at plea, entitling him to relief | Government: sentencing should be upheld based on PSR findings and plea choice at sentencing | Court: Descamps disposition renders the Rule 11 and plea-withdrawal arguments moot; did not reach them |
Key Cases Cited
- Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013) (modified categorical approach only for divisible statutes listing alternative elements)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (limits documents sentencing courts may consult when determining the basis of a prior conviction)
- Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (2010) (definition of elements and categorical approach principles)
- United States v. Tucker, 740 F.3d 1177 (8th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (interpreting Descamps and limiting the modified categorical approach)
- United States v. Williams, 627 F.3d 324 (8th Cir. 2010) (discussing Shepard documents and prior-conviction inquiry)