United States v. Coleman
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 17645
| 6th Cir. | 2011Background
- Coleman challenged his sentence enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) based on whether Ohio third-degree burglary (O.R.C. § 2911.12(A)(3)) is a violent felony.
- District court applied ACCA enhancement based on three prior Ohio convictions: burglary (2002, 2005) and attempted burglary (2002).
- Facts included discovery of an unloaded firearm frame in Coleman’s back pocket; he claimed he intended to keep it away from children.
- Ohio third-degree burglary covers trespass in an occupied structure with intent to commit a crime, and defines occupied structure broadly.
- Supreme Court precedents require a categorical analysis: evaluate whether the statutory elements fit the ACCA residual clause by comparing to generic burglary.
- The court concluded that the Ohio statute is not identical to generic burglary but is categorically violent under the residual clause because it creates a similar and serious risk of physical injury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ohio 2911.12(A)(3) is a violent felony under ACCA | Coleman argues it is not categorically violent. | Coleman contends the statute is broader than generic burglary and thus not within the residual clause. | Yes; it is violent under the residual clause. |
| Whether occupied-structure burglary poses a similar risk to generic burglary | The risk is similar to generic burglary due to potential confrontations. | N/A or not explicitly argued separately from main issue. | Risk is substantially similar in kind and degree. |
| Impact of attempted burglary on ACCA applicability | Attempted burglary may pose equal risk as completed burglary. | N/A or not separately argued apart from main analysis. | Attempted burglary counts toward the violent-felony assessment. |
| Whether absence of presence element in Ohio § 2911.12(A)(3) defeats risk analysis | Presence element not required; risk remains from occupancy. | Argues absence of element undermines risk analysis. | Absence of a separate element does not defeat risk; occupancy still creates risk. |
| Whether improper post-release-control notice invalidates a predicate conviction | Notice failure could render the 2005 conviction invalid as an ACCA predicate. | Fischer clarifies notice affects only post-release control not the conviction. | Not grounds to invalidate the ACCA predicate; proper rule applied. |
Key Cases Cited
- James v. United States, 550 U.S. 192 (2007) (categorical approach to violent felonies under ACCA)
- Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (2008) (similarity and significance of risk under residual clause)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (definition of generic burglary and its elements)
- Lane, 909 F.2d 895 (6th Cir. 1990) (occupation of structure and risk to occupants)
- Scoville, 561 F.3d 1174 (10th Cir. 2009) (Ohio third-degree burglary and residual-clause analysis)
- Holycross, 333 Fed.Appx. 81 (6th Cir. 2009) (Broader-than-generic-burglary reasoning in § 924(e))
- Skipper, 552 F.3d 489 (6th Cir. 2009) (attempted burglaries as violent felonies)
- Bureau, 52 F.3d 584 (6th Cir. 1995) (attempted burglary violent for residual clause)
- Fish, 928 F.2d 185 (6th Cir. 1991) (role of burglary offenses in ACCA context)