United States v. Morrison
852 F.3d 488
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Jermaine Morrison pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) and executed a written plea agreement that waived 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 qualified as a "crime of violence," making him a career-offender under the Guidelines and producing a 77–96 month range; the district court found the conviction qualified and imposed a 96-month sentence (top of range).
- The district court relied on Sixth Circuit precedent (United States v. Ozier) allowing courts to look to Shepard documents to determine which alternative offense formed the basis of a divisible statute, and on the then-operative Guidelines definition including "burglary of a dwelling."
- While Morrison’s appeal was pending, the Supreme Court decided Mathis (clarifying divisibility and abrogating Ozier for this purpose) and the Sixth Circuit granted en banc rehearing in Stitt to resolve Tennessee aggravated burglary’s divisibility; these developments cast doubt on whether Morrison’s prior conviction remained a "crime of violence."
- Morrison argued on appeal that Mathis and related developments entitled him to resentencing and rendered his appeal waiver unenforceable; the government maintained the waiver bars his appeal and, alternatively, the district court would have imposed the same sentence even absent the crime-of-violence finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Morrison’s appellate waiver bars his challenge to the Guidelines classification after a change in the law | Morrison: Mathis and related developments mean his Tennessee aggravated-burglary conviction no longer qualifies, so he cannot knowingly waive the right to challenge that classification | Government: The waiver was knowing and voluntary; a change in law does not undo an express appellate waiver | Waiver enforced; Morrison knowingly and voluntarily waived appeal rights and may not rely on subsequent changes in law to rescind the waiver |
| Whether any error in treating the prior conviction as a crime of violence requires resentencing | Morrison: If aggravated burglary no longer qualifies, his Guidelines range would be lower and he should be resentenced | Government: Even if the classification were erroneous, the district court said it would have varied upward and imposed the same 96-month sentence | Harmless error: district court would have imposed the same sentence regardless, so no remand for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ozier, 796 F.3d 597 (6th Cir.) (discussed divisibility and use of Shepard documents)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (clarified divisibility analysis and abrogated Ozier)
- Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970) (change in law does not render a previously knowing plea involuntary)
- United States v. McBride, 826 F.3d 293 (6th Cir.) (distinguished — no appeal waiver in that plea; addressed Johnson-era challenges)
- Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016) (harmless error framework for Guidelines miscalculation)