904 F.3d 867
10th Cir.2018Background
- Petitioner Aaron Lewis pled guilty in 2010 to being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced as an Armed Career Criminal (ACCA) to 188 months based on two drug convictions and a 1991 Kansas burglary conviction.
- The ACCA defines "violent felony" by (i) elements/use-of-force clause, (ii) an enumerated-offenses clause (including burglary), and (iii) a residual clause later invalidated in Johnson v. United States.
- Lewis filed a § 2255 petition in 2016 invoking Johnson (made retroactive by Welch) to argue his Kansas burglary conviction qualified only under the now-invalid residual clause, so he no longer had three predicates.
- The district court denied relief; Lewis sought a certificate of appealability (COA) and raised additionally whether Mathis v. United States should be applied retroactively on collateral review.
- The Tenth Circuit reviewed whether Lewis showed the sentencing court more likely than not relied on the residual clause (historic inquiry) and separately discussed harmless-error review using post-sentencing law like Mathis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of § 2255 under Johnson | Lewis invoked Johnson within one year of decision; therefore timely | Govt contended claims should be barred if not properly invoked | Held: Timely — Lewis invoked Johnson within § 2255(f)(3) window |
| Whether Lewis’s Kansas burglary conviction qualified only under the invalid residual clause | Lewis: 1991 Kansas burglary goes beyond generic burglary and only qualified via residual clause, so ACCA predicate fails | Govt: charging documents show Lewis was charged with entry into a building with intent, fitting generic burglary under enumerated clause | Held: Lewis failed to show by preponderance that sentencing court more likely than not relied on residual clause; no Johnson error established |
| Retroactivity/applicability of Mathis on collateral review | Lewis argued Mathis should be applied to recharacterize his burglary offense under current categorical analysis | Govt: Mathis is a post‑sentencing decision and not part of the controlling law at time of sentencing for the initial Johnson inquiry | Held: Mathis is not used in the initial, historical Johnson inquiry; only relevant at harmless-error stage; court granted COA on this debatable issue but did not apply Mathis to find error |
| Certificate of appealability (COA) | Lewis sought COA to appeal denial of § 2255 relief | Govt opposed COA except on narrow issues | Held: COA granted as to retroactivity of Mathis (reasonable jurists could debate) but appeal denied on the merits (no Johnson error) |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (invalidating ACCA residual clause) (established rule later made retroactive for collateral review)
- Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (holding Johnson retroactive on collateral review) (retroactivity of Johnson for § 2255 motions)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (clarifying categorical/modified-categorical approaches) (post-sentencing decision about comparing elements to generic offenses)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (defining generic burglary for ACCA purposes) (permitted using certain documents to determine whether a state burglary matches generic burglary)
- Shepherd v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (scope of documents permissible in modified categorical approach) (limits evidence courts may consult to identify the offense of conviction)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (standard for granting COA) (defines substantial showing of denial of constitutional right for COA)
- Frady v. United States, 456 U.S. 152 (actual prejudice standard for collateral review) (discusses prejudice required to overcome procedural default)
- United States v. Moore, 83 F.3d 1231 (remand/resentencing guidance) (explains de novo proceedings on remand and governing law at resentencing)