United States v. Matthews
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 8879
| 1st Cir. | 2011Background
- Matthews was convicted in 2004 of felon in possession and faced an ACCA enhancement to a 15-year mandatory minimum based on three prior predicates.
- Two predicates were conceded valid (1996 violent felony and 1995 drug offense); the third relied on a 1992 juvenile adjudication for assault and battery.
- At sentencing, the government proved the juvenile adjudication's knife use via a police report, and the court counted it as an ACCA predicate.
- Matthews challenged the use of the juvenile adjudication and argued Apprendi principles; this court affirmed in Matthews I (2007).
- In 2009 Matthews sought §2255 relief; the district court held a new sentencing hearing and admitted juvenile court documents, reinstating the ACCA enhancement.
- The First Circuit held that the law of the case doctrine barred Matthews’s challenge to the predicate and that the district court’s errors were harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether law of the case bars Matthews’s challenge | Matthews contested the predicate; law of the case forecloses. | Government argues doctrine applies to maintain finality. | Law of the case bars the challenge. |
| Whether Shepard error could be raised on collateral review | Shepard error should be litigated; intervening change in law. | Defaulted Shepard claim cannot be revived absent exceptional circumstances. | No exceptional circumstance; Shepard claim barred. |
| Whether the district court erred by entertaining the defaulted Shepard claim | District court erred in addressing defaulted Shepard claim. | No reversible error; new sentence remains. | Errors treated as harmless; new sentence affirmed. |
| Whether juvenile adjudication can count as an ACCA predicate | Juvenile adjudications should not count as ACCA predicates and need jury proof per Apprendi. | Precedent supports counting juvenile adjudications as predicates. | Foreclosed by circuit precedent; juvenile adjudication counts if properly proved. |
Key Cases Cited
- Matthews v. United States, 498 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2007) (previous affirmance of conviction and sentence in ACCA context)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (Supreme Court 2005) (limits on proving ACCA predicates by police reports)
- United States v. Bell, 988 F.2d 247 (1st Cir. 1993) (law of the case framework for subsequent stages)
- United States v. Moran, 393 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2004) (mandate rule and components of law-of-the-case doctrine)
- Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605 (Supreme Court 1983) (law-of-the-case principles and finality in litigation)
- United States v. Connell, 6 F.3d 27 (1st Cir. 1993) (application of law-of-the-case and finality concepts)
- United States v. Ellis, 619 F.3d 72 (1st Cir. 2010) (per curiam on collateral review considerations)