United States v. Torrance James Lockett
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 992
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Torrance Lockett pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
- The PSR counted four prior burglaries (two South Carolina, two Florida) and recommended ACCA treatment (15-year mandatory minimum).
- The District Court treated Lockett’s two South Carolina convictions as ACCA "violent felonies" under the enumerated burglary clause and imposed the ACCA sentence.
- Lockett appealed, arguing South Carolina burglary is broader than generic burglary and the statute is indivisible (so the modified categorical approach cannot be used).
- The Eleventh Circuit reviewed de novo, applied Descamps/Taylor/Shepard principles, and examined South Carolina statutory definitions and state law practice on indictments and jury instructions.
- The court held South Carolina burglary is non-generic and indivisible; the District Court erred in counting those convictions under ACCA, so the ACCA sentence was vacated and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether South Carolina burglary qualifies as ACCA "burglary" (generic burglary) | Lockett: SC statute is broader than generic burglary (includes vehicles/boats), so convictions don’t qualify | Government: SC burglary counts under ACCA’s enumerated clause | Held: SC burglary is non-generic (statute covers structures/vehicles/watercraft/aircraft) — does not match generic burglary |
| Whether SC burglary statute is divisible (allowing modified categorical approach) | Lockett: Statute is indivisible; prosecutors/juries need only find entry into a "dwelling," not which type | Government: District Court concluded statute divisible and relied on record to identify generic conduct | Held: Statute is indivisible; SC practice does not require selecting/proving a specific alternative dwelling, so modified categorical approach is unavailable |
| Whether sentencing court could examine plea/charging documents to determine generic elements | Lockett: Shepard/Descamps foreclose using such documents when statute is indivisible | Government: District Court relied on documents to identify conduct matching generic burglary | Held: Under Descamps/Shepard, when statute is indivisible sentencing court cannot use such documents to treat convictions as generic |
| Whether ACCA sentence should stand based on other priors | Lockett: Even if Florida convictions once counted, post-Johnson residual clause issues may negate them | Government: Conceded Florida convictions counted at sentencing (but not raised on appeal) | Held: Because SC convictions cannot be counted, ACCA enhancement based on three violent felonies was improper; sentence vacated (court did not finally resolve Florida priors here) |
Key Cases Cited
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013) (modified categorical approach limited to divisible statutes; focus on elements not facts)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (definition of generic burglary for ACCA analysis)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (permissible documents for modified categorical inquiry)
- Apprendi v. United States, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (Sixth Amendment limits on judicial factfinding that increases punishment; prior-conviction exception)
- United States v. Howard, 742 F.3d 1334 (11th Cir. 2014) (discussion of Descamps and divisibility; Alabama burglary analysis)