United States v. Wayland Hinkle
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 14810
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Wayland Hinkle sold 0.3 grams of crack and pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).
- The PSR classified Hinkle as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 based on two prior Texas felonies: burglary and a conviction under Tex. Health & Safety Code § 481.112(a) for knowingly delivering a controlled substance (heroin).
- Texas defines “deliver” to include actually transferring, constructively transferring, or offering to sell a controlled substance (Tex. Health & Safety Code § 481.002(8)).
- The Guidelines’ definition of a “controlled substance offense” does not include mere offers to sell; it covers manufacture, distribution, dispensing, or possession with intent to do those acts (U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b)).
- Hinkle argued the Texas delivery statute is indivisible and thus his Texas delivery conviction could not categorically qualify as a Guidelines “controlled substance offense” because it criminalizes conduct (offers to sell) outside the Guidelines’ definition.
- The district court rejected Hinkle’s objection and applied the career-offender enhancement; Hinkle appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Texas "delivery" definition is divisible such that the modified categorical approach may identify which method of delivery formed the prior conviction | Hinkle: the statutory alternatives (actual transfer, constructive transfer, offer to sell) are mere means, not separate elements; statute is indivisible, so sentencing court cannot consult records to pick an alternative that fits the Guidelines | Government: Texas charging document narrowed the conviction to actual transfer; statute is divisible and court may use the modified categorical approach to determine the method | The court held the Texas definition sets out alternative means, not elements; under Mathis the modified categorical approach is unavailable and the prior Texas delivery conviction does not categorically match the Guidelines’ "controlled substance offense" definition |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (distinguishes elements from means and limits use of the modified categorical approach)
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013) (explains when courts may consult limited record materials to identify which statutory alternative formed the conviction)
- United States v. Price, 516 F.3d 285 (5th Cir. 2008) (prior Fifth Circuit discussion of delivery statute in career-offender context)
- Lopez v. State, 108 S.W.3d 293 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (Texas precedent holding methods of delivery are alternative theories/means, not separate elements)