United States v. Charles Naylor, II
887 F.3d 397
8th Cir.2018Background
- Charles Naylor pleaded guilty (Nov. 2015) to being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
- The district court applied the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), enhancing Naylor’s sentence to 180 months based on four prior Missouri second-degree burglary convictions (Mo. Rev. Stat. § 569.170 (1979)).
- A prior 8th Cir. panel affirmed relying on United States v. Sykes; Naylor sought rehearing en banc.
- Central legal question: whether the Missouri statute’s disjunctive phrase “building or inhabitable structure” lists elements (divisible statute → modified categorical approach) or means (indivisible statute → categorical approach) for ACCA burglary purposes.
- The en banc court concluded Missouri law treats the alternatives as means (indivisible), so convictions under § 569.170 (1979) are broader than generic burglary and therefore do not qualify as ACCA violent felonies.
- The court vacated Naylor’s ACCA sentence and remanded for resentencing; to the extent Sykes held otherwise it is overruled.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Naylor) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Missouri § 569.170’s phrase “building or inhabitable structure” lists elements (divisible) or means (indivisible) | The Missouri phrase denotes means, so the statute is indivisible; apply the categorical approach → convictions do not match generic burglary | The phrase denotes elements (prosecutors often charge one alternative; jury/indictment focus shows elements); statute is divisible → apply modified categorical approach | Held: phrase denotes means; statute is indivisible; apply categorical approach; convictions under § 569.170 (1979) are not ACCA burglaries |
| Whether court may resolve divisibility using Missouri authoritative sources or must "peek" at conviction records | State law provides clear answers (cases and model instructions) that alternatives are means; no need to consult conviction records | If state law unclear, may look at indictments/records; those records show Naylor pleaded to specific ‘‘building’’ counts supporting divisibility | Held: Missouri case law and precedent provide clear answer that alternatives are means; no "peek" required |
| Effect of Missouri model charges/jury instructions (MAI/MACH) on means vs elements analysis | MAI/MACH and Missouri precedent indicate parenthetical alternatives are choices for drafters, not dispositive evidence of elements | Government contends adjacent parentheticals in MAI/MACH indicate elements | Held: MAI/MACH not dispositive; Missouri case law and judicial interpretations control and support means conclusion |
| Whether United States v. Sykes remains binding | Naylor: Sykes was wrongly decided under Mathis and should be overruled | Government: Sykes controls in this circuit | Held: To the extent Sykes held Missouri § 569.170 convictions qualify as ACCA burglaries, it is overruled by this en banc decision |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (Sup. Ct.) (defines generic burglary for ACCA and instructs comparing state statute/elements)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (Sup. Ct.) (distinguishes "elements" from "means"; categorical vs. modified categorical approach)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (Sup. Ct.) (permissible record materials for determining prior conviction elements)
- Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (Sup. Ct.) (discusses limits of modified categorical approach)
- United States v. Sykes, 844 F.3d 712 (8th Cir.) (prior panel decision holding Missouri second-degree burglary qualified as ACCA burglary; overruled here)