United States v. Charles Naylor, II
682 F. App'x 511
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- Charles P. Naylor II pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
- At sentencing the government argued Naylor qualified as an Armed Career Criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) based on three Missouri second-degree burglary convictions, triggering a 15-year mandatory minimum.
- Missouri second-degree burglary, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 569.170(1), criminalizes unlawful entry or remaining in "a building or inhabitable structure" to commit a crime.
- The question was whether Missouri § 569.170(1) is divisible (has alternative elements) so the court may use the modified categorical approach to identify the specific means/elements of Naylor’s prior convictions.
- District court found the prior convictions involved burglaries of "buildings," the convictions matched the generic definition of burglary, and imposed the ACCA mandatory minimum; Naylor preserved appeal of that determination.
- This panel affirmed the district court, applying the modified categorical approach and concluding the records showed convictions for burglaries of buildings, which qualify as violent felonies under the ACCA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mo. Rev. Stat. § 569.170(1) is divisible such that the modified categorical approach applies | Naylor argued the statute is indivisible (lists means), so his convictions may not be matched to generic burglary | Government argued the statute is divisible (lists alternative elements like "building" vs "inhabitable structure") allowing the court to identify the specific variant of prior convictions | Court held the statute is divisible for purposes of this case, applied the modified categorical approach, and concluded records showed burglaries of "buildings," qualifying as generic burglary and ACCA predicates |
| Whether Naylor’s prior Missouri convictions match the generic definition of burglary | Naylor contended his prior convictions might not match generic burglary if statute were indivisible or records ambiguous | Government relied on conviction records indicating entry into buildings, matching generic burglary | Court held the underlying documents showed burglaries of buildings, so the prior convictions match generic burglary and are ACCA violent felonies |
| Whether the panel should follow Eighth Circuit precedent (Sykes) despite state-law indications | N/A (government relies on Sykes) | Naylor pointed to Missouri cases suggesting the phrase might denote means, not elements | Court applied circuit precedent (Sykes) and affirmed, noting one-panel rule binds this panel absent intervening state-court holding |
| Whether Descamps/Mathis limits record consultation and affects result | N/A | Parties disputed the proper scope of documents under Descamps/Mathis for the modified categorical approach | Court applied Descamps/Mathis: consulted limited record documents and used them to identify the specific variant (building), affirming ACCA enhancement |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (establishes generic burglary test for predicate offenses)
- Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (limits use of record documents under the modified categorical approach)
- Mathis v. United States, 579 U.S. _ (distinguishes elements from means; divisibility analysis)
- United States v. Sykes, 844 F.3d 712 (8th Cir. precedent treating Missouri second-degree burglary as divisible)
- Owsley v. Luebbers, 281 F.3d 687 (one-panel rule binding circuit panels)