United States v. Donald Priddy
808 F.3d 676
| 6th Cir. | 2015Background
- Defendant Donald Priddy pled guilty in 2014 to two counts of being a felon in possession of firearms in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).
- The PSR identified multiple prior Tennessee convictions as ACCA predicates: three aggravated burglaries (including two 1991 convictions treated separately), one robbery (1994), and two 2005 burglaries.
- At sentencing defense counsel acknowledged that Priddy faced sentencing under the ACCA and did not object to the PSR’s characterization; Priddy questioned whether two concurrent convictions counted separately.
- The district court found at least four prior convictions qualified as violent felonies under the ACCA (three aggravated burglaries and robbery) and imposed the ACCA mandatory minimum 180-month sentence.
- On appeal Priddy argued those prior convictions do not qualify as ACCA violent felonies; the government argued waiver/forfeiture but the court reviewed for plain error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Priddy) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Priddy waived/forfeited his challenge to ACCA application | Sentencing counsel’s statements and memorandum explicitly agreed ACCA applied; claim waived or, at least, forfeited so only plain-error review | Counsel’s acknowledgment did not constitute an intentional waiver; merits challenge preserved or should be reviewed | Court treated the claim as forfeited but reviewed under plain-error and proceeded to merits analysis |
| Whether Tennessee aggravated burglary is a categorical ACCA burglary predicate | Aggravated burglary counts as generic burglary under prior precedent (Nance) | Aggravated burglary may be broader than generic burglary because Tennessee’s definition of “habitation” could include non-buildings | Majority upheld aggravated burglary as a predicate (relied on Nance); concurrence said issue unnecessary to decide and questioned Nance |
| Whether Tennessee burglary convictions (Tenn. Code § 39-14-402) qualify as generic burglary | The statute’s Class D variants correspond to generic burglary; Class D plea means the offense matched generic burglary | Priddy argued records don’t show which subsection; therefore cannot be deemed generic | Court held convictions were Class D; thus necessarily under subsections (a)(1)-(a)(3) which are generic burglary — ACCA predicates |
| Whether Tennessee robbery is a violent felony under the ACCA use-of-force clause | Tennessee robbery involves violence or putting in fear, meeting use-of-force requirement | Priddy disputed that robbery necessarily meets ACCA’s force element | Court held Tennessee robbery is categorically a violent felony under the use-of-force clause |
Key Cases Cited
- Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (distinguishes waiver from forfeiture and frames plain-error review)
- Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015) (invalidated ACCA residual clause as unconstitutionally vague)
- Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (1997) (plain-error standard articulated)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (definition of generic burglary for ACCA purposes)
- Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013) (categorical and modified categorical approaches; divisible statutes)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (limited documents permissible under modified categorical approach)
- Nance v. United States, 481 F.3d 882 (6th Cir. 2007) (held Tennessee aggravated burglary qualifies as generic burglary)
- Mitchell v. United States, 743 F.3d 1054 (6th Cir. 2014) (Tennessee robbery categorically meets ACCA use-of-force clause)
- Aparco-Centeno v. United States, 280 F.3d 1084 (6th Cir. 2002) (counsel’s explicit agreement at sentencing can waive appellate challenge)