United States v. Dontey Tucker
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 26128
| 3rd Cir. | 2012Background
- Tucker appeals his 15-year sentence after pleading guilty to possession of a firearm as a felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
- The ACCA enhancement hinges on three qualifying prior convictions for “violent felonies” or “serious drug offenses,” including a 1995 Pennsylvania violent felony and two drug offenses: a 1999 PWID conviction and a 2002 conspiracy to sell drugs conviction.
- Tucker argued the two Pennsylvania drug convictions did not necessarily involve cocaine and thus could not meet the “maximum ten years” requirement for a serious drug offense.
- The District Court found both prior drug convictions involved cocaine, making them ACCA predicates and sentenced Tucker to 15 years.
- On appeal, the court applied the modified categorical approach: the 2002 conspiracy conviction did not actually require a conspiracy to sell cocaine, so it did not qualify; the 1999 PWID cocaine conviction did qualify, so no Sixth Amendment issue for that predicate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 2002 conspiracy conviction qualifies as a serious drug offense | Tucker: conspiracy to sell cocaine was not required to convict | Government: record shows conspiracy to sell drugs; cocaine element not necessarily required | Conspiracy conviction does not qualify; vacate and remand for resentence |
| Whether 1999 PWID conviction qualifies as a serious drug offense | Tucker: district court reliance on cocaine specifics violated Apprendi/Last antecedent | Government: charging papers limited to cocaine; conviction necessarily required cocaine | PWID cocaine conviction qualifies as ACCA predicate |
| Scope of the modified categorical approach in this case | Taylor/Shepard allow review limited to charging papers and jury instructions for the relevant conviction | Government: other documents may inform the meaning of the charge | Review limited to documents pertaining to the challenged conviction; transactions outside are not allowed |
| Whether the District Court’s use of evidence beyond Taylor’s scope affected result | N/A | N/A | District Court erred by considering transcripts outside the Taylor scope; affects the 2002 conviction only |
| Overall impact on Tucker’s sentence | Two prior drug offenses did not clearly qualify; incorrect enhancement | ACCA enhancement correct for at least one predicate | Sentence vacated; remanded for resentencing consistent with opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (U.S. 1990) (categorical approach; restricts inquiry to statute and prior offense definition)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (U.S. 2005) (modified categorical approach for pleas; elements must be admitted)
- Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29 (U.S. 2009) (limits on evidence when using modified categorical approach)
- Gibbs v. United States, 656 F.3d 180 (3d Cir. 2011) (modified categorical approach applies to serious drug offenses)
- Richardson v. United States, 313 F.3d 121 (3d Cir. 2002) (illustrates least culpable conduct standard under ACCA)