United States v. Tolentino
707 F. App'x 558
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Tolentino pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and received a 15-year sentence, enhanced under the ACCA.
- The ACCA enhancement rested in part on two New Mexico residential burglary convictions under N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-16-3(A).
- In 2015, the Supreme Court invalidated the ACCA’s residual clause in Johnson, which affected some ACCA enhancements.
- Tolentino filed a § 2255 motion arguing New Mexico residential burglary is broader than the generic burglary offense, so his convictions should not qualify as ACCA predicates.
- The district court denied relief; Tolentino sought a certificate of appealability to challenge that denial.
- The Tenth Circuit declined to grant a certificate because United States v. Turrieta held New Mexico § 30-16-3(A) matches generic burglary and thus qualifies under the ACCA’s enumerated-offense clause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether N.M. burglary § 30-16-3(A) is broader than generic burglary for ACCA purposes | Tolentino: New Mexico statute is broader than the generic burglary definition, so convictions shouldn't count as ACCA predicates | Government: New Mexico burglary matches the generic burglary offense and qualifies as an ACCA predicate under the enumerated-offense clause | Court: Turrieta controls; New Mexico § 30-16-3(A) matches generic burglary and ACCA enhancement stands |
| Whether Johnson’s invalidation of the residual clause entitles Tolentino to relief | Tolentino: Johnson removes the residual basis for enhancement and requires reexamination of predicate status | Government: Even without the residual clause, the enumerated-offense clause independently supports the enhancement | Court: Even post-Johnson, enumerated clause applies here; no relief warranted |
| Whether reasonable jurists could debate denial of § 2255 relief (COA standard) | Tolentino: His claim raises a debatable issue given Johnson and statutory interpretation questions | Government: Controlling Tenth Circuit precedent forecloses debate | Court: No; certificate of appealability denied |
| Whether Turrieta is dispositive on identical argument | Tolentino: Argues facts/statutory reading distinguish his case | Government: Turrieta is directly on point | Court: Tolentino’s argument is the same as rejected in Turrieta; appeal dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (invalidated ACCA residual clause)
- Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016) (Johnson is retroactively applicable on collateral review)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (generic-elements approach for categorical comparison of prior offenses)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (standard for issuing a certificate of appealability)
- United States v. Turrieta, 875 F.3d 1340 (10th Cir. 2017) (held N.M. § 30-16-3(A) matches generic burglary; ACCA applies independently of residual clause)