United States v. Robinson
17-6046
| 10th Cir. | Jan 9, 2018Background
- Robinson, a felon, was sentenced in 2007 under the ACCA to 180 months for being a felon in possession (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)) based on three prior convictions (Oklahoma robbery with a firearm (1973), Arkansas second-degree burglary (1989), Oklahoma assault & battery with a dangerous weapon (2005)).
- He appealed and sought § 2255 relief unsuccessfully; after Johnson v. United States (2015) invalidated the ACCA residual clause and Welch made Johnson retroactive, Robinson obtained permission to file a successive § 2255 motion.
- In the successive § 2255 Robinson argued his 1989 Arkansas burglary and 2005 Oklahoma assault convictions qualified as ACCA predicates only under the now-invalid residual clause; he also raised other claims (due process, trial-reopening/double jeopardy).
- The district court found the Arkansas burglary qualified under the ACCA’s enumerated-offenses clause and the Oklahoma assault under the elements clause, and denied relief; Robinson appealed and received a COA limited to the Arkansas-burglary assessment.
- The Tenth Circuit reviewed the sentencing record in light of the controlling law at the time of sentencing (Taylor and Shepard) and affirmed: the record and background law supported treating the Arkansas burglary as a generic burglary (enumerated clause); other claims failed or were not cognizable on successive § 2255.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Robinson) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Robinson's 1989 Arkansas second-degree burglary counts as an ACCA "burglary" under the enumerated-offenses clause | The Arkansas statute covered "occupiable structure" including vehicles; under later decisions (Mathis) it does not match generic burglary and thus only qualified, if at all, under the residual clause | The record and presentence report show the conviction involved a house; under Taylor/Shepard the sentencing court could rely on charging/PSR to treat it as generic burglary | Affirmed: considering the record and the legal environment at sentencing (Taylor/Shepard), the burglary conviction was properly treated under the enumerated-offenses clause, so Johnson does not help Robinson |
| Whether the 2005 Oklahoma assault & battery with a dangerous weapon is a violent felony under the ACCA elements clause | Robinson contended the conviction might not fit the elements clause (raised in §2255) | Government relied on circuit precedent holding Okla. § 645 meets the elements clause | Held: Circuit precedent (Tommy Taylor and progeny) makes this conclusion not reasonably debatable; COA denied on this claim |
| Whether Robinson may pursue an independent due process claim because Johnson reduced his ACCA predicates and thus he was sentenced above the statutory maximum | Robinson analogized to Shipp: after a predicate is invalidated, enhanced sentence exceeds statutory maximum, violating due process | Government argued successive §2255 is limited by §2255(h)(2) to claims based on a new rule of constitutional law made retroactive by the Supreme Court (i.e., Johnson only) | Held: Not cognizable on successive §2255 beyond Johnson; Johnson claim fails here, so no due process relief; COA denied |
| Whether the trial court violated due process/double jeopardy by allowing the government to reopen its case after it rested | Robinson argued reopening deprived him of due process and constituted double jeopardy | Government noted this claim is neither based on new law nor new evidence and was already rejected on prior §2255 as not shown on direct appeal | Held: Claim barred on successive §2255 and previously rejected; COA denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (invalidated ACCA residual clause as void for vagueness)
- Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016) (made Johnson retroactive to cases on collateral review)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (defined "generic" burglary and endorsed the categorical approach)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (restricted the court documents usable to determine whether a plea admitted generic-offense elements)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (clarified categorical approach distinctions between divisible statutes and indivisible elements)
- Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013) (addressed use of the categorical approach and divisible statutes)
- Snyder v. United States, 871 F.3d 1122 (10th Cir. 2017) (holding courts may examine background law at sentencing to determine whether a sentencing court relied on the residual clause)
- United States v. Taylor, 843 F.3d 1215 (10th Cir. 2016) (Tommy Taylor) (held Oklahoma § 645 satisfies elements-clause analog)
- United States v. Shipp, 589 F.3d 1084 (10th Cir. 2009) (explained due process problem when a defendant is sentenced beyond statutory maximum after predicate no longer counts)