United States v. Haney
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 19404
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- Charles Haney pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)).
- Presentence report identified three ACCA predicate convictions: 1975 Illinois burglary, 1977 armed bank robbery, and 1990 Pennsylvania aggravated assault (plus additional burglary and assault convictions not used at sentencing).
- District court treated Haney as an Armed Career Criminal and imposed the 15‑year mandatory minimum under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1).
- Haney argued his Illinois burglary convictions do not qualify as ACCA predicates under Taylor/Descamps/Johnson; parties on appeal agreed the 1970s Illinois burglary statute was broader than "generic" burglary under Mathis.
- The government relied on the Pennsylvania aggravated‑assault convictions as remaining predicates, but the record did not establish (via Shepard‑approved documents) that the three assault convictions occurred on different occasions as required by § 924(e)(1).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Haney) | Defendant's Argument (Gov't) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Haney's 1970s Illinois burglary convictions qualify as ACCA "burglary" predicates | Statute is broader than generic burglary (includes vehicles, trailers, watercraft) so not a predicate | Initially relied on circuit precedent treating some Illinois burglary convictions as predicates; on appeal conceded statute is broader under Mathis | Court: Illinois burglary statute then was broader than generic burglary; those convictions are not ACCA predicates |
| Whether Pennsylvania aggravated‑assault convictions are ACCA violent felonies under § 924(e)(2)(B)(i) | Argues statute does not require intentional use/threat of force and thus may not qualify | Argues they are violent felonies (court did not decide) | Court: Did not decide; remanded for district court to determine whether PA aggravated assault is a violent felony |
| Whether the three violent‑felony predicates were "committed on occasions different from one another" | Haney: The assaults may have occurred simultaneously, so they could be a single occasion | Gov't: Burden to prove different occasions, but did not submit Shepard‑approved proof at sentencing | Court: Government failed to prove by preponderance that assaults occurred on different occasions; remand required to resolve this factual/legal issue |
| Remedy: Whether sentence must be vacated and case remanded | Haney: Sentence based on invalid predicates and unresolved "different occasions" issue should be vacated | Gov't: Argued remaining predicates suffice (but record inadequate on occasion issue) | Court: VACATED sentence and REMANDED for re‑sentencing to resolve (1) whether PA aggravated assault is a violent felony and (2) whether assaults occurred on different occasions |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (defines generic burglary for ACCA)
- Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (statute broader than generic offense cannot be a predicate)
- Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (invalidated ACCA residual clause as unconstitutionally vague)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (statutes with alternative means covering non‑generic locations are not divisible for categorical approach)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (limits what sentencing‑record documents may be used to classify prior convictions)
- Kirkland v. United States, 687 F.3d 878 (government must prove by preponderance that predicates occurred on different occasions)
- Dawkins v. United States, 809 F.3d 953 (7th Cir. decision addressing Illinois residential burglary under Taylor)
- United States v. Edwards, 836 F.3d 831 (7th Cir. applying Mathis to conclude a state burglary statute was broader than generic burglary)