918 F.3d 592
8th Cir.2019Background
- Coleman pleaded guilty 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), and imposed the 15-year statutory minimum.
- The ACCA enhancement rested on three predicates: two serious drug convictions and a 2006 Arkansas kidnapping conviction.
- Kidnapping under Ark. Code § 5-11-102 lists an overarching restraint element plus seven specified purposes (a)(1)–(a)(7).
- The government conceded the statute is overbroad (it can be violated without physical force) but argued the statute is divisible into separate offenses by purpose, and that Coleman was convicted under subsection (a)(6) (terrorizing).
- The court considered whether the statute’s listed purposes are elements (divisible) or alternative means (indivisible) for the categorical/force-clause analysis under the ACCA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Arkansas kidnapping (Ark. Code § 5-11-102) qualifies as an ACCA violent felony under the force clause | Coleman: statute is indivisible and overbroad; thus kidnapping cannot count as a force-clause predicate | Government: statute is divisible by the listed purposes; Coleman was convicted under (a)(6), which requires force, so it qualifies | The statute’s purposes are alternative means, not elements; the statute is indivisible. The kidnapping conviction cannot be a force-clause ACCA predicate; ACCA enhancement was plain error and sentence is reversed for resentencing. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Boman, 873 F.3d 1035 (8th Cir. 2017) (plain-error and categorical-approach discussion)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (divisibility/means-vs-elements inquiry)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain-error standard)
- United States v. McMillan, 863 F.3d 1053 (8th Cir. 2017) (use of state model jury instructions to inform means/elements analysis)
- Hill v. State, 257 S.W.3d 534 (Ark. 2007) (Arkansas Supreme Court treating the statute’s purposes as manner/means, not separate elements)