United States v. Hines
150 F. Supp. 3d 1227
E.D. Wash.2015Background
- Petitioner Paul Hines was convicted in 2003 of being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)) and making a false statement in acquiring a firearm (§ 922(a)(6)).
- At sentencing the district court applied the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) enhancement based on two Washington second-degree burglary convictions, producing a mandatory 15-year sentence instead of the otherwise applicable 10-year maximum.
- After Johnson v. United States, Hines filed a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition arguing he is actually innocent of the ACCA enhancement and served a sentence above the lawful maximum absent ACCA.
- The Government conceded the petition was procedurally proper for consideration; the central legal question became whether Washington’s second-degree burglary statute qualified as an ACCA "violent felony."
- The court applied the categorical and divisibility analyses from Descamps and related Ninth Circuit precedents to determine whether the state statute matched federal generic burglary or was divisible so the modified categorical approach could be used.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Washington second-degree burglary is a categorical match to generic burglary for ACCA purposes | Hines: It is not a categorical match; thus it cannot serve as an ACCA predicate post-Johnson | Gov: The conviction qualifies (or alternatively statute is divisible so modified categorical approach applies) | Court: Not a categorical match; statute covers locations outside generic burglary (e.g., fenced areas, cargo containers) |
| Whether the Washington statute is divisible (allowing the modified categorical approach) | Hines: Statute is indivisible because the overbroad alternatives come from a definitional statute and jury need not agree on the particular "building" | Gov: Courts (per Brooks) treated statute as divisible | Court: Statute is indivisible under Rendon/Dixon; modified categorical approach cannot be used |
| Whether the conviction qualifies under ACCA's enumerated clause or residual clause after Johnson | Hines: It does not qualify under either clause | Gov: Argued predicate status (enumerated or via divisibility) | Court: Does not qualify under enumerated clause; residual clause invalid after Johnson, so ACCA enhancement cannot apply |
| Remedy — relief available and sentencing consequences | Hines: Entitled to vacatur of ACCA sentence and immediate release/resentencing | Gov: Conceded procedural posture but opposed substantive relief | Court: Granted § 2255 petition, vacated ACCA sentence, ordered immediate release and resentencing on underlying counts with procedural instructions for PSR and conditions pending resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (holding ACCA residual clause void for vagueness)
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (establishing categorical vs modified categorical approach for predicate offenses)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (defining generic burglary for ACCA analysis)
- Wenner v. United States, 351 F.3d 969 (discussing state statute coverage broader than generic burglary)
- Rendon v. Holder, 764 F.3d 1077 (Ninth Circuit test for divisibility: alternative elements vs alternative means)
- United States v. Dixon, 805 F.3d 1193 (Ninth Circuit reiteration of divisibility standard)