United States v. Molina
1:04-cr-00989
S.D.N.Y.Oct 17, 2019Background
- Molina was convicted in 2005 of being a felon in possession of a firearm and sentenced in 2006 to 180 months under the ACCA after the court found three prior New York convictions for second-degree attempted robbery qualified as ACCA predicates.
- The Second Circuit affirmed Molina’s conviction on direct appeal in 2007.
- Molina filed a § 2255 petition in 2009 which the court denied in 2010; the Second Circuit later authorized a second or successive habeas filing in 2016.
- In the instant § 2255 petition (filed 2016), Molina argues that after Johnson v. United States (2015) invalidated the ACCA residual clause, only the ACCA force clause remains applicable and his New York attempted-robbery convictions do not satisfy that clause because they can involve only de minimis force.
- The government contends the convictions are violent felonies under the ACCA force clause and raises procedural defenses (procedural default and the § 2255 one-year statute of limitations).
- The district court denied the petition on the merits, holding Second Circuit precedent controls that New York attempted second-degree robbery qualifies as an ACCA violent felony under the force clause; the court did not reach the government’s procedural arguments and denied a certificate of appealability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Molina's three NY second-degree attempted robbery convictions qualify as ACCA violent felonies after Johnson (2015). | Molina: Johnson invalidated the residual clause, leaving only the force clause, and NY attempted robbery can be committed with de minimis force that does not meet the force clause. | Gov't: The convictions are unquestionably violent felonies under the ACCA force clause. | Held: Denied — Second Circuit precedent controls; NY attempted second-degree robbery (and attempted robbery generally) qualifies under the force clause. |
| Whether the petition is procedurally barred (procedural default or § 2255(f) statute of limitations). | Molina: (implicit) merits review of his claim. | Gov't: Petition is procedurally barred by failure to raise claim on direct appeal and by the one-year limitations period. | Held: Court did not reach procedural defenses because it resolved the petition on the merits against Molina. |
| Whether a certificate of appealability (COA) should issue. | Molina: seeks leave to appeal. | Gov't: opposed. | Held: COA denied — petitioner failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. United States, [citation="752 F. App'x 108"] (2d Cir. 2019) (holding attempted second-degree robbery under New York law is a violent felony under the ACCA force clause)
- Thomas, United States v., [citation="765 F. App'x 553"] (2d Cir. 2019) (same: all degrees of robbery and attempted robbery under NY law constitute ACCA violent felonies)
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (invalidating the ACCA residual clause)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (standard for issuing a certificate of appealability)
- Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424 (1962) (grounds for collateral relief under § 2255)
- Bokun v. United States, 73 F.3d 8 (2d Cir. 1995) (describing the limited availability of § 2255 relief)