United States v. Carrigan
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 14677
| 1st Cir. | 2013Background
- Carrigan pled guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) without a plea agreement or a reservation to appeal the suppression denial; he received a 15-year ACCA sentence and 3 years of supervised release.
- He appeals on (i) ineffective assistance of counsel for not preserving the right to appeal, (ii) prejudice from not reserving that right and asserting lack of reasonable suspicion and probable cause, and (iii) whether ACCA applies to him and whether the residual clause is vague.
- The district court denied Carrigan’s suppression motion after a hearing; the PSR classified him as an Armed Career Criminal; Carrigan pled guilty on March 3, 2011, after the denial, and the court noted the ACCA consequences.
- A 911 call described a gun-wielding driver in an Acura with plate 446A20; police later observed a matching car and driver, followed the vehicle to a driveway, and arrested Carrigan when he exited the car, discovering a loaded firearm.
- Officers observed evasive driving and other suspicious behavior consistent with flight; the court addressed the Terry stop and found reasonable suspicion, then held the stop did not become an unlawful arrest when handcuffs were used for officer safety.
- Carrigan challenges the ACCA predicate status of three prior Massachusetts convictions, arguing lack of notice; the court analyzes the predicates under the categorical approach and upholds the ACCA sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defense counsel’s performance was ineffective for not preserving the suppression appeal. | Carrigan | Carrigan’s counsel failed to inform about the consequences of not preserving; prejudice shown | No prejudice; ineffective-assistance claim not reached on the merits. |
| Whether the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion and whether the subsequent arrest violated the Fourth Amendment. | Carrigan | Police had reasonable suspicion; stop and handcuffing were lawful for safety | The Terry stop was supported by reasonable suspicion; the handcuffs did not convert to an unlawful arrest. |
| Whether Carrigan qualifies as an Armed Career Criminal given his prior Massachusetts convictions and the residual clause. | Carrigan | Three prior violent felonies predicate ACCA; Lanier does not apply; some convictions qualify under residual/categorized analysis | Three qualifying predicates; ACCA sentence affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1968) (establishes reasonable suspicion standard for Terry stops)
- United States v. Monteiro, 447 F.3d 39 (1st Cir. 2006) (reliability of tip information depends on tip reliability)
- United States v. Weeks, 611 F.3d 68 (1st Cir. 2010) (resisting arrest may be a violent felony for ACCA; parallel with guideline)
- Hart, 674 F.3d 33 (1st Cir. 2012) (assault and battery with a deadly weapon qualifies under residual clause)
- Holloway, 630 F.3d 252 (1st Cir. 2011) (discusses residual clause and identification in ACCA)
- Glover, 558 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. 2009) (prior rule applying ACCA predicates under career offender guidelines)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (Supreme Court, 2005) (limits use of documents to identify the conviction offense for ACCA)
- Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (Supreme Court, 1998) (recidivism exception for sentencing factors in Alleyne context)
- United States v. Dancy, 640 F.3d 455 (1st Cir. 2011) (vagueness considerations in ACCA context)