United States v. Trinkle
509 F. App'x 700
10th Cir.2013Background
- Defendant Billy Trinkle challenged his two Kansas criminal-threat convictions as not crimes of violence for USSG § 4B1.1 career-offender designation in his § 2255 motion.
- District court denied § 2255 relief, but granted a COA on one ground for appeal; the court later characterized a second argument as a COA issue and granted a COA for that argument as well.
- PSR classified the Kansas convictions as crimes of violence under § 4B1.2(a) and treated Trinkle as a career offender, giving a guidelines range of 360 months to life and a resulting sentence of 240 months.
- Trinkle argued, based on Johnson, that the Kansas offense could be committed without violent force, questioning its status under § 4B1.2(a)(1).
- The district court rejected the Johnson-based argument and declined to consider a new mens rea argument on reconsideration; it granted a COA on the latter, which the district later vacated.
- This court held that COA may issue only for constitutional rights; the challenges here concern nonconstitutional sentencing error under the Guidelines, so the COA and appeal must be dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a COA may issue for nonconstitutional sentencing issues | Trinkle contends COA is improperly restricted to constitutional rights. | The district court necessarily considered nonconstitutional sentencing errors; a COA was warranted. | COA improper for nonconstitutional sentencing claims; vacated and dismissed. |
| Whether the district court had authority to grant a COA on the second argument | N/A | The second argument merited COA consideration. | District court lacked statutory authority to grant COA on the second issue; vacated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (2010) (Johnson defines physical force for crime-of-violence analysis)
- United States v. Taylor, 454 F.3d 1075 (10th Cir. 2006) (AEDPA COA standard; constitutional-right focus)
- United States v. Christensen, 456 F.3d 1205 (10th Cir. 2006) (non-constitutional sentencing claim; COA not available)
- United States v. Holcomb, 370 F. App’x 943 (10th Cir. 2010) (4A1.2 sentencing-error claim not basis for COA)
- United States v. Zuniga-Soto, 527 F.3d 1110 (10th Cir. 2008) (recklessness mens rea in assault-type offenses; not necessarily a crime of violence)