United States v. Couchman, 17-6018

Background

In 2008 Charles Dean Couchman pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm; his prior record included multiple burglary convictions (Oklahoma 1992 & 1994; Oregon 1993) used to trigger the ACCA enhancement.
The probation officer and district judge treated Couchman’s prior burglaries as ACCA "violent felonies," producing a 15-year mandatory minimum and a 192-month sentence.
On direct appeal the Tenth Circuit (in Couchman I) concluded the charging documents showed the prior burglaries satisfied generic burglary, supporting ACCA enhancement.
After Johnson v. United States (2015) invalidated the ACCA residual clause, Couchman sought permission to bring a successive §2255 arguing his predicate convictions no longer qualified (relying also on Mathis later).
The district court denied relief and a COA, finding Couchman’s sentence rested on the ACCA’s enumerated-offense clause (burglary), not the residual clause; the Tenth Circuit denied a COA and dismissed the matter.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Couchman’s ACCA enhancement relied on the residual clause	Couchman: sentencing judge referenced "sufficient risk of violence," so enhancement depended on the now-invalid residual clause	Government: record and surrounding law show enhancement rested on the enumerated-offense clause (burglary)	Held: Enhancement was based on the enumerated-offense clause; Johnson (residual-clause) is inapplicable
Whether charging/PSR materials could be consulted to show convictions were generic burglary	Couchman: post-sentencing decisions (Mathis) undermine use of modified categorical approach to Oklahoma statute	Government: at time of sentencing Taylor permitted a modified categorical inquiry into charging documents where statute was broader	Held: Under the snapshot of controlling law at sentencing, the modified categorical approach was proper and charging documents showed burglaries of buildings/structures
Whether Johnson II provides retroactive basis for a successive §2255 here	Couchman: Johnson II renders his predicate convictions invalid so successive §2255 should be allowed	Government: Johnson II aids only if sentence relied on residual clause; it does not help when enhancement rested on enumerated offense	Held: Johnson II does not provide relief because the residual clause was not used at sentencing
Whether a COA should issue	Couchman: reasonable jurists could debate the clause used at sentencing and applicability of Mathis	Government: record and contemporaneous law foreclose reasonable debate	Held: COA denied; district court ruling not reasonably debatable

Key Cases Cited

Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (U.S. 2015) (invalidated ACCA residual clause)
Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (U.S. 2016) (held Johnson is retroactive on collateral review)
Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (U.S. 1990) (defined generic burglary for ACCA and authorized modified categorical approach in narrow cases)
Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (U.S. 2016) (clarified limits of the modified categorical approach)
United States v. Snyder, 871 F.3d 1122 (10th Cir. 2017) (use snapshot of law at sentencing to determine clause applied)
United States v. Hill, 53 F.3d 1151 (10th Cir. 1995) (analyzed Oklahoma burglary statute under categorical/modified categorical approach)
James v. United States, 550 U.S. 192 (U.S. 2007) (risk-level analysis for residual clause)
Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (U.S. 2010) (defined "violent force" for ACCA elements clause)
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedures for counsel seeking to withdraw on appeal)
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (U.S. 2003) (standard for issuing a certificate of appealability)