United States v. Murphy
887 F.3d 1064
10th Cir.2018Background
- In 2008 Murphy pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and received a 15‑year sentence under the ACCA enhancement for having three prior burglary convictions.
- The PSR and the parties at sentencing agreed the prior Oregon and Wyoming burglary convictions matched the generic Taylor definition of burglary; Murphy did not appeal his sentence.
- Murphy’s first § 2255 (2009) argued counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the ACCA classification under Taylor; the district court denied relief and Murphy did not appeal.
- After Johnson invalidated the ACCA residual clause, Murphy obtained permission to file a second § 2255 arguing his sentence depended on the residual clause and so must be vacated.
- The district court dismissed the second motion at the gatekeeping stage, finding the record showed Murphy was sentenced under the ACCA’s enumerated‑offense clause (burglary), not the residual clause; the court granted a COA on that issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a successive § 2255 may rely on Johnson to reopen Murphy's ACCA enhancement | Murphy: his state burglary statutes are broader than generic burglary, so the ACCA enhancement must have rested on the now‑invalid residual clause | Govt: record (PSR, sentencing agreement) shows enhancement was based on enumerated burglary, so Johnson does not apply | Court: Held for Govt — record and contemporaneous law show sentencing rested on enumerated‑offense clause, not residual clause |
| Whether Murphy’s second § 2255 satisfied § 2255(h) and related gatekeeping (§ 2244) | Murphy: Johnson is a new, retroactive rule that makes his sentence invalid, so he satisfies § 2255(h)(2) | Govt: even if Johnson is new, Murphy’s claim does not ‘rely on’ Johnson because the sentencing relied on enumerated burglaries | Court: Murphy made a prima facie showing to obtain authorization, but on district review the motion fails the second gate because it does not actually rely on Johnson |
| Whether the court should apply a two‑gate certification process to second/successive § 2255 motions | Murphy: (implicitly) authorization should permit merits review | Govt: court may and should apply both appellate prima facie and district‑court substantive gatekeeping | Court: Adopted two‑gate process (appellate prima facie; district court determination under § 2244(b)(4)) |
| Whether Murphy’s claim is really a Taylor claim barred as previously available | Murphy: asserts statutory ineligibility post‑Johnson | Govt: claim is effectively a Taylor challenge previously available and already litigated | Court: Held it is a disguised Taylor claim that was available earlier; not saved by Johnson |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015) (ACCA residual clause unconstitutional)
- Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016) (Johnson made retroactively applicable on collateral review)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (categorical approach defining generic burglary)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (limitations on comparing elements to statutes vs. conduct)
- United States v. Snyder, 871 F.3d 1122 (10th Cir. 2017) (a § 2255 motion need only invoke the new right to be timely; assessing whether claim ‘relies on’ Johnson)
- In re Encinias, 821 F.3d 1224 (10th Cir. 2016) (a motion “contains” a new rule if it “relies on” that rule)
- Bennett v. United States, 119 F.3d 468 (7th Cir. 1997) (adopting two‑gate certification process for successive motions)
- United States v. Geozos, 870 F.3d 890 (9th Cir. 2017) (claim does not rely on Johnson if record shows sentencing did not rest on residual clause)