United States v. Gregory Shockley
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 5357
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- Police investigating Shockley for drug trafficking and a related homicide recovered one bag of trash from outside his home containing small plastic bag corners, THC-positive leaf material, plastic gloves, and mail to Shockley’s address.
- Based on that and prior encounters where officers found marijuana and cocaine on Shockley, Detective Blank’s affidavit supported a search warrant; the search yielded firearms, ammunition, scales, small marijuana quantity, and bags with methamphetamine and cocaine residue.
- Shockley moved for a Franks hearing and to suppress, arguing the affidavit contained false or misleading statements about the homicide investigation that were necessary for probable cause; the magistrate and district courts denied the motion.
- Shockley pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession but reserved the right to appeal suppression; his PSR listed three prior felony resisting-arrest convictions which the district court treated as ACCA violent felonies under the ACCA residual clause, producing a 180-month sentence.
- After the Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson (invalidating the ACCA residual clause), the Eighth Circuit considered whether Shockley’s prior convictions instead qualified under the ACCA force clause; the PSR descriptions were inadequate under the modified categorical approach to establish that they did.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Franks hearing/suppression was required because the affidavit contained false statements necessary for probable cause | Shockley: affidavit included false/misleading homicide-related statements; without them there was no probable cause | Government: unchallenged drug-related statements alone supplied probable cause for the search; homicide statements unnecessary | Court held: Denial of Franks hearing/suppression affirmed — trash/drug evidence in affidavit established probable cause |
| Whether prior Missouri resisting-arrest felonies qualify as ACCA predicate violent felonies | Shockley: his prior convictions do not qualify under ACCA after Johnson invalidated the residual clause | Government: convictions qualified as violent felonies under ACCA (court previously relied on residual clause) | Court held: Sentence vacated and remanded — residual clause invalid; PSR did not supply Shepard-eligible judicial documents to show convictions meet the ACCA force clause, so remand for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (false-statement hearing standard)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (probable cause totality-of-circumstances)
- United States v. Briscoe, 317 F.3d 906 (trash evidence can alone establish probable cause)
- United States v. Allebach, 526 F.3d 385 (drug-residue and paraphernalia support probable cause for narcotics search)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (categorical approach for prior convictions)
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (modified categorical approach limitations)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (limited documents permissible under modified categorical approach)
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (ACCA residual clause void for vagueness)