United States v. Holmes
2:15-cr-20010
E.D. Mich.Sep 19, 2017Background
- Between Dec. 20–29, 2014, Deontae Holmes and co-defendants committed a series of armed robberies of Family Dollar and Dollar General stores in Detroit; defendants were armed and threatened employees.
- A grand jury indicted Holmes on eight counts: four Hobbs Act robberies (18 U.S.C. § 1951) and four § 924(c) firearm counts.
- Holmes pleaded guilty to six counts pursuant to a Rule 11 plea agreement on June 22, 2015.
- On Jan. 21, 2016, the court sentenced Holmes to 174 months (six-month concurrent terms on the robbery counts; consecutive 84-month terms on two § 924(c) counts).
- Holmes filed a § 2255 motion claiming (1) Johnson v. United States invalidates § 924(c)’s residual clause and thus his § 924(c) convictions, and (2) ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to explain plea consequences. The court denied the § 2255 petition and declined to issue a certificate of appealability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (United States) | Defendant's Argument (Holmes) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Johnson invalidates § 924(c) conviction(s) | § 924(c) remains valid because Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence under § 924(c)(3)(A) (the force clause); Sixth Circuit authority distinguishes § 924(c) residual clause from ACCA’s | Johnson renders § 924(c)’s residual clause void for vagueness, invalidating the § 924(c) predicate | Denied — Hobbs Act robbery qualifies under the force clause; Johnson does not void Holmes’s § 924(c) convictions |
| Whether counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to explain plea consequences | Plea transcript shows Holmes was informed of rights, penalties, and discussed plea with counsel; no deficient performance or prejudice shown | Counsel failed to explain true consequences of pleading guilty, causing prejudice | Denied — Holmes failed to show counsel’s performance was deficient or that he would have insisted on trial (Hill/Strickland standards) |
| Whether a Certificate of Appealability (COA) should issue | No substantial showing of denial of a constitutional right; issues not debatable among reasonable jurists | Requests COA implicitly by seeking relief | Denied — petitioner did not meet § 2253(c)(2) standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (invalidated ACCA residual clause)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (prejudice standard for plea-stage ineffectiveness)
- Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (right to effective counsel in plea bargaining)
- Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 (deference to counsel’s perspective in effectiveness review)
- United States v. Taylor, 814 F.3d 340 (6th Cir.; § 924(c) residual clause distinction and Hobbs Act robbery as crime of violence)
- United States v. Taylor, 176 F.3d 331 (6th Cir.; Hobbs Act conspiracy/robbery as crime of violence)