United States v. Christopher Ritchey
840 F.3d 310
6th Cir.2016Background
- Christopher Ritchey pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm; his sentence included a 15-year mandatory minimum under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) based on six prior Michigan breaking-and-entering convictions under Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.110.
- The presentence report treated each § 750.110 conviction as an ACCA "violent felony," producing an ACCA designation that raised his Guidelines and produced the 15-year mandatory minimum.
- Ritchey objected, arguing § 750.110 is broader than the ‘‘generic burglary’’ definition and thus his convictions should not qualify as ACCA predicates; the Government argued § 750.110 is divisible and Shepard documents show the prior offenses involved buildings (barn, garage, store).
- The district court applied the modified categorical approach to the charging papers, found the prior convictions involved structures within the generic burglary definition, and imposed the ACCA sentence.
- On appeal, the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case in light of Mathis v. United States and held § 750.110 is broader than generic burglary and—because Michigan law treats the list of places as illustrative/means rather than separate elements—§ 750.110 is not divisible under Mathis.
- The Sixth Circuit vacated Ritchey’s ACCA-based sentence and remanded for resentencing without the ACCA enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether convictions under Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.110 qualify as ACCA "burglary" predicates | Ritchey: § 750.110 is broader than generic burglary (includes tents, boats, etc.) and is not a divisible statute, so prior convictions cannot count as ACCA burglaries | Government: § 750.110 is divisible; Shepard documents show Ritchey broke into buildings (barn, garage, store), so apply the modified categorical approach to treat them as generic burglaries | Held: § 750.110 is broader than generic burglary and Michigan law treats the listed places as illustrative means, not elements; the statute is indivisible under Mathis, so convictions under it cannot be ACCA burglary predicates |
| Whether the district court’s ACCA application was plain error requiring resentencing | Ritchey: Mathis changed the law; the district court’s ACCA finding is now clearly erroneous and affected his substantial rights (sentence would be far shorter) | Government: Ritchey waived or conceded predicate status; sentencing should stand | Held: Even under plain-error review, Mathis renders the district court’s ACCA finding plainly erroneous, it affected substantial rights (Guidelines/sentence increase), and resentencing is required |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (elements-only inquiry; disallows treating statutory alternatives that are means as divisible elements for ACCA)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (defines the "generic" contemporary meaning of burglary)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (limits sentencing-court inquiry to certain record documents when statute is divisible)
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013) (clarifies when modified categorical approach may be used and restricts reliance on means/underlying facts)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (facts increasing penalty must be found by a jury, unless based on prior conviction)
- United States v. Fish, 928 F.2d 185 (6th Cir. 1991) (prior Sixth Circuit decision that treated an earlier version of § 750.110 as ACCA predicate; limited by Mathis)