852 F.3d 488
6th Cir.2017Background
- Jermaine Morrison pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)) and signed a written plea agreement waiving his right to appeal any sentence within the applicable Guidelines range or lower.
- At sentencing the government argued Morrison’s prior Tennessee aggravated-burglary conviction was a “crime of violence,” placing his Guidelines range at 77–96 months; the district court found the prior was burglary of a dwelling and imposed 96 months.
- At the time of sentencing, Sixth Circuit precedent (United States v. Ozier) allowed examining the plea colloquy to identify the alternative offense that formed the conviction, and the Guidelines then enumerated “burglary of a dwelling.”
- While Morrison’s appeal was pending, Mathis v. United States changed the law governing statutory divisibility and abrogated Ozier; the Sixth Circuit granted rehearing en banc in a related case (Stitt) to address Tennessee’s aggravated-burglary statute post-Mathis.
- Morrison argued on appeal that Mathis renders his prior conviction not a crime of violence and that he is entitled to resentencing; he contended the change in law makes his appeal waiver unenforceable.
- The district court stated that even if aggravated burglary were not a crime of violence it would have varied upward and imposed the same 96-month sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Morrison's appeal waiver bars his challenge to classification of his prior Tennessee aggravated burglary under new law | Morrison: Mathis changed divisibility law so his appeal waiver cannot bar a claim that his prior conviction is not a crime of violence; he seeks resentencing | Government: Waiver was knowing and voluntary; changes in law after a waiver do not undo it; Morrison assumed the risk of legal shifts | Court: Waiver enforceable; change in law does not render the plea unknowing; appeal dismissed |
| Whether Morrison can rely on McBride to avoid waiver enforcement | Morrison: Distinguishes McBride (post-judgment change) to preserve his claim | Government: McBride is inapposite because McBride did not contain an appeal waiver; here Morrison knowingly waived appeals | Court: McBride doesn't apply; waiver stands |
| Whether erroneous Guidelines calculation (if any) requires resentencing | Morrison: If aggravated burglary is not a crime of violence, Guidelines range lowers and he should be resentenced | Government: Even if error, district court said it would have imposed same 96-month sentence regardless (harmless) | Court: Any error was harmless because district court would have imposed same sentence; no remand |
| Whether change in law undermines voluntariness of plea | Morrison: Lack of foresight about Mathis makes waiver involuntary | Government: Precedent (Brady, Bradley) forecloses that argument—changes in law do not make a prior voluntary waiver involuntary | Court: Change in law does not render plea unknowing or involuntary; waiver valid |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (clarified statutory-divisibility framework and abrogated prior divisibility approach)
- Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970) (change in law after a plea does not render plea involuntary)
- McBride v. United States, 826 F.3d 293 (6th Cir. 2016) (distinguished: no appeal waiver; reviewed plain error post-Johnson)
- Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016) (an erroneous Guidelines calculation can be harmless if the record shows the district court would have imposed the same sentence)
- United States v. Toth, 668 F.3d 374 (6th Cir. 2012) (plea waivers enforced when knowing and voluntary)