United States v. Darral Morris
821 F.3d 877
7th Cir.2016Background
- In Aug. 2013 police found a loaded semi-automatic pistol in Darral C. Morris’s vehicle; he was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and pled guilty on Oct. 2, 2014.
- The plea agreement contained an anticipatory Sentencing Guidelines range and stated that if Morris qualified under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), his total offense level and Criminal History Category would yield a higher range; the plea advised the court would determine the final range.
- The plea agreement mistakenly listed the ACCA-based guideline range as 118–235 months; the PSR (filed after the plea) correctly listed the range as 188–235 months.
- Morris moved to withdraw his guilty plea after the typographical error was discovered; the district court denied the motion.
- The district court found Morris had three qualifying ACCA predicates (a residential burglary and two drug convictions from separate sales in Feb. 2009) and sentenced him under the ACCA to 180 months; Morris appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ACCA is unconstitutionally vague as applied | Morris: ACCA’s phrase “committed on occasions different from one another” lacks a clear methodology, permitting arbitrary application | Government: ACCA and circuit precedent provide workable standards focusing on whether crimes are separate episodes (opportunity to cease) | Court: ACCA not unconstitutionally vague as applied; two drug sales four days apart are separate predicates |
| Whether district court erred denying motion to withdraw guilty plea | Morris: Typographical error in plea about guideline range meant his plea was not knowing; he bargained for a lower range and was entitled to rescind | Government: Plea expressly reserved sentencing to the court; PSR corrected range and defendant acknowledged understanding at plea colloquy | Court: Denial not an abuse of discretion; discrepancy in guideline estimate is insufficient to withdraw plea |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Zuniga, 767 F.3d 712 (7th Cir.) (standard of review for ACCA sentence)
- Hegwood v. City of Eau Claire, 676 F.3d 600 (7th Cir.) (de novo review of statute constitutionality)
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (vagueness test for criminal statutes)
- United States v. Elliott, 703 F.3d 378 (7th Cir.) (simultaneous crimes treated as single occasion)
- United States v. Cardenas, 217 F.3d 491 (7th Cir.) (separate sales 45 minutes apart are distinct episodes)
- United States v. Nigg, 667 F.3d 929 (7th Cir.) (close-in-time robberies can be separate episodes)
- United States v. Morrison, 686 F.3d 94 (2d Cir.) (circuit split does not alone show vagueness)
- United States v. Patterson, 576 F.3d 431 (7th Cir.) (sentencing-range discrepancy in plea insufficient to withdraw plea)
- United States v. Fard, 775 F.3d 939 (7th Cir.) (standard for voluntary and knowing plea)
- Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970) (plea must be entered with sufficient awareness of consequences)