United States v. Dwayne Morgan
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 622
5th Cir.2017Background
- Dwayne D. Morgan pleaded guilty in 2010 to being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) to 15 years because at least three prior convictions were treated as ACCA "violent felonies."
- Judgment was entered April 22, 2010; no direct appeal was filed, so the conviction became final May 6, 2010.
- Morgan filed a § 2255 motion on April 28, 2014, arguing that recent Supreme Court decisions (notably Descamps) rendered one or more of his predicate convictions ineligible as ACCA violent felonies.
- The district court dismissed the § 2255 motion as time-barred, concluding Descamps did not restart the one-year filing period because it did not announce a newly recognized right made retroactive on collateral review.
- The district court granted a Certificate of Appealability solely on whether Descamps applies retroactively; the Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding Descamps did not announce a new rule for purposes of § 2255(f)(3) and therefore Morgan’s motion was untimely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Morgan’s § 2255 motion was timely under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3) based on Descamps | Morgan: Descamps announced a new right, so the § 2255 one-year clock restarted from Descamps (filed within one year) | Government: Descamps did not announce a newly recognized right made retroactive; original one-year period expired in 2011 | The court held Descamps did not announce a new rule under § 2255(f)(3); Morgan’s motion is time-barred |
Key Cases Cited
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013) (held the modified categorical approach cannot be used when the predicate statute is indivisible)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (formulated the categorical approach for predicate offenses)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (limits evidence sentencing courts may consult to determine predicate offenses)
- Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (2010) (relevant precedent on ACCA violent-felony analysis)
- Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29 (2009) (prior precedent relied on in Descamps)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (framework for determining when a rule is "new" for retroactivity purposes)
- Clay v. United States, 537 U.S. 522 (2003) (defines when a conviction becomes final for collateral review)
- Lambrix v. Singletary, 520 U.S. 518 (1997) (explains when precedent "dictates" an outcome such that a rule is not new)