895 F.3d 1251
10th Cir.2018Background
- Leaverton was convicted in federal court of three counts of bank robbery; at sentencing the government argued 18 U.S.C. § 3559(c) required a mandatory life term based on two prior serious violent felonies.
- The disputed prior conviction was Oklahoma first-degree manslaughter under Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 711; the state statute has three alternative subsections.
- The district court relied on a state docket minute entry stating a guilty plea to “MANSLAUGHTER I, SECTION #2, TITLE 711” and concluded § 711(2) qualified as a § 3559(c) enumerated serious violent felony (manslaughter other than involuntary manslaughter), imposing life.
- Leaverton appealed, arguing that § 711(2) does not categorically match the federal/generic definition of manslaughter used in § 3559(c), and that the docket entry was an insufficient Shepard document to identify the subsection.
- The Tenth Circuit applied the categorical/modified categorical framework, concluded § 711 is divisible, held the docket sheet alone was insufficient under Shepard/Abeyta to establish the subsection, and—on the merits—concluded § 711(2) does not categorically match the generic definition of manslaughter in § 3559(c).
- The court reversed and remanded for resentencing, declining to consider a new argument by the government under the residual/force-based clause (§ 3559(c)(2)(F)(ii)) to allow fuller briefing in district court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the categorical approach applies to § 3559(c) predicate analysis | Categorical approach governs (Leaverton) | Categorical approach governs (government agreed) | Court: categorical approach applies; use modified categorical approach for divisible statutes |
| Whether Oklahoma § 711 is divisible into alternative elements permitting modified categorical documents | § 711 is divisible; Oklahoma jury instructions and OCCA treat subsections as distinct elements (Leaverton) | Government relied on divisibility to identify subsection from docket (government) | Court: § 711 is divisible; modified categorical approach applies |
| Whether the state docket sheet is an acceptable Shepard document to identify which § 711 subsection formed the conviction | Docket sheet insufficiently reliable; not a Shepard document (Leaverton) | Docket sheet may identify subsection (government) | Court: docket sheets are inadequate per Shepard/Abeyta; government conceded it needed docket sheet, so cannot meet its burden on that ground |
| Whether conviction under § 711(2) categorically matches the generic federal definition of manslaughter in § 3559(c) | § 711(2) does not match generic manslaughter because Oklahoma requires no intent to kill and lacks a recklessness theory (Leaverton) | § 711(2) corresponds to federal/voluntary manslaughter (government) | Court: § 711(2) does not categorically equal the generic definition of manslaughter used in § 3559(c); Leaverton’s prior conviction does not qualify as an enumerated serious violent felony |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cooper, 375 F.3d 1041 (10th Cir. 2004) (standard of review for § 3559(c) questions)
- United States v. White, 782 F.3d 1118 (10th Cir. 2015) (categorical vs. circumstance-specific approaches)
- United States v. Titties, 852 F.3d 1257 (10th Cir. 2017) (divisible statutes and the modified categorical approach)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (elements vs. means analysis)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (permissible record documents to identify offense elements)
- Moncrieffe v. Holder, 569 U.S. 184 (2013) (categorical matching to generic federal definitions)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (use of generic definitions for enumerated offenses)
- United States v. Abeyta, 877 F.3d 935 (10th Cir. 2017) (docket sheets are not Shepard documents)
- United States v. Serawop, 410 F.3d 656 (10th Cir. 2005) (discussion of heat-of-passion and differences among jurisdictions)