United States v. Hamilton
889 F.3d 688
10th Cir.2018Background
- Raymond Hamilton was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) for possession of a firearm by a felon and originally sentenced under the ACCA to 190 months based in part on three Oklahoma second-degree burglary convictions.
- ACCA imposes a 15-year mandatory minimum if a defendant has three prior "violent felony" convictions; a violent felony can be established under the Elements Clause, the Enumerated-Offense Clause (e.g., burglary), or the Residual Clause.
- Two of Hamilton’s prior felonies were undisputed violent felonies (robbery with firearms and assault with a deadly weapon); the three Oklahoma second-degree burglary convictions were the contested predicates.
- The government argued the Oklahoma burglaries qualified under the ACCA’s Enumerated-Offense Clause via the modified categorical approach; the Residual Clause (the only remaining route if enumerated fails) is unconstitutional.
- The central legal question was whether Oklahoma’s second-degree burglary statute (Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 1435) is divisible (so the modified categorical approach applies) or indivisible (requiring the categorical approach and comparison to generic burglary).
- The district court granted Hamilton’s § 2255 motion, resentenced him to time served; the Tenth Circuit affirmed, holding Oklahoma’s statute is indivisible and thus the convictions could not be counted as ACCA predicates under the Enumerated-Offense Clause.
Issues
| Issue | Hamilton's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 1435 is divisible for Mathis/Descamps purposes | § 1435 is indivisible; locational alternatives are means, not elements | Locational alternatives are elements, so § 1435 is divisible and the modified categorical approach applies | Indivisible: court uncertain whether locations are elements; treat as means, so indivisible |
| Whether Hamilton’s Oklahoma burglary convictions qualify as generic burglary under the Enumerated-Offense Clause | They do not categorically match generic burglary; statute sweeps more broadly | Hamilton’s specific convictions involved generic burglary facts, so they should count under the modified categorical approach | Cannot use modified categorical approach (statute indivisible); convictions do not categorically match generic burglary |
| Whether ACCA enhancement could be supported without the Enumerated-Offense Clause | Enhancement cannot rest on the Residual Clause because it is unconstitutionally vague | Government relied (previously) on the Residual Clause to justify enhancement | Because enumerated clause cannot be used, enhancement would have relied on Residual Clause, which is void for vagueness; § 2255 relief proper |
| Whether the record (charging documents, jury instructions, case law) resolves divisibility | Record and OUJI indicate alternatives are means; charging papers don’t show contested single alternative | Charging documents and OCCA references to alleging place show location is essential and thus an element | State case law, statute text, and record do not show certainty that alternatives are elements; inquiry favors means/indivisibility |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (defining "generic" burglary and endorsing the categorical approach)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (limiting documents allowed under the modified categorical approach)
- Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (requiring a statute be divisible before using the modified categorical approach)
- United States v. Green, 55 F.3d 1513 (10th Cir. 1995) (holding Oklahoma § 1435 broader than generic burglary)
- United States v. Cartwright, 678 F.3d 907 (10th Cir. 2012) (standard of review for violent-felony qualification)
- United States v. Titties, 852 F.3d 1257 (10th Cir. 2017) (using OUJI to inform means/elements analysis)
- United States v. Degeare, 864 F.3d 1241 (10th Cir. 2018) (requiring certainty that alternatives are elements to apply modified categorical approach)