United States v. Troy Hockenberry
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 19296
| 6th Cir. | 2013Background
- On Sept. 1, 2011 Youngstown police/ATF (V-Grip task force) stopped a black Jeep reported earlier as attempting to sell firearms; officers testified they observed a failure to signal and conducted a felony traffic stop. Occupants: driver Billy Gray (no license), Troy Hockenberry (owner, no valid license), and Patricia Hunt (had warrants). Officers drew weapons, patted down occupants, and decided to tow the vehicle.
- Officers conducted an inventory search (per department policy) before towing and opened the tailgate, immediately observing a handgun case and long-gun barrels; they seized some items but did not list all items and later obtained a warrant to search again, finding additional tools (crowbar, bolt cutters).
- Gray and Hockenberry were indicted for being felons in possession (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)) and related interstate transportation counts; both moved to suppress the vehicle-search evidence; the district court denied suppression and accepted conditional guilty pleas reserving certain appellate rights.
- At sentencing the court applied the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)) to both defendants: Hockenberry sentenced to 204 months, Gray to 216 months. Hockenberry challenged plea withdrawal and ACCA classification; Gray challenged ACCA predicates and his sentence.
- Sixth Circuit: affirmed suppression-denial as to inventory search and impoundment (no bad-faith or pretext shown). Reversed Hockenberry’s ACCA enhancement because his Pennsylvania fleeing-or-elude conviction was a second-degree misdemeanor punishable ≤2 years and thus not a crime "punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year" under 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20)(B). Affirmed Gray’s ACCA classification and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of traffic stop | N/A (Government: stop valid; officers observed failure to signal) | Gray argued officers lacked probable cause and stop was pretextual given tip about gun sale | Stop upheld: officers saw failure to signal; subjective motive irrelevant (Whren) |
| Lawfulness of inventory search / impoundment | Government: impoundment and inventory valid under department policy; search was inventory, not investigatory | Defendants: officers failed to follow policy, omitted items, asked about guns before search — search was pretextual | Inventory search and impoundment upheld; some policy deviations noted but no bad faith or sole-investigatory purpose shown |
| Hockenberry plea withdrawal | Hockenberry: plea involuntary due to stress, meds, drug use; sought to withdraw at sentencing | Government: plea was knowing/voluntary after thorough Rule 11 colloquy | Denial affirmed: plea knowing and voluntary; withdrawal not supported by "fair and just" reason |
| Hockenberry ACCA predicate (PA fleeing/elude) | Hockenberry: PA second-degree misdemeanor fleeing does not qualify as "crime punishable by imprisonment > 1 year" and thus not an ACCA violent felony | Government initially counted it but conceded on appeal that § 921(a)(20)(B) excludes such PA misdemeanor punishable ≤2 years | Reversed: PA misdemeanor falls within § 921(a)(20)(B); cannot be ACCA predicate; remand for resentencing |
| Gray ACCA predicates (PA burglaries & OH failure to comply) | Gray: insufficient proof; 2002 burglaries should count as one; burglary statute broader than generic; OH failure-to-comply not comparable risk | Government: produced charging documents, informations show separate generic burglaries; OH flight conviction is a violent felony under residual clause (Sykes) | Affirmed: charging docs/PSR sufficient; burglaries count separately and are generic burglary; OH failure-to-comply is a violent felony under residual clause; Gray an ACCA offender |
| Reasonableness / appeal of Gray’s sentence | Gray: sentence greater than necessary and Eighth Amendment challenge | Government: appellate waiver in plea agreement bars review; sentence within Guidelines and justified by extensive history | Affirmed: appeal waiver valid; sentence reasonable within Guidelines given record |
Key Cases Cited
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (officer's subjective motive irrelevant to traffic-stop Fourth Amendment analysis)
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (warrantless vehicle-search framework; inventory-search exception context)
- Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (inventory searches are a well-defined exception to the warrant requirement)
- Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1 (inventory searches must follow standardized criteria to avoid being a ruse)
- Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (modified categorical approach limited to divisible statutes)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (definition of generic burglary for ACCA purposes)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (permissible documents for determining the nature of prior convictions)
- Sykes v. United States, 564 U.S. 1 (vehicular flight can qualify as a violent felony under ACCA residual clause)
- United States v. Kimes, 246 F.3d 800 (some flexibility in applying inventory-policy criteria; post-discovery listing not dispositive)