United States v. Wilson
249 F. Supp. 3d 305
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Ralph T. Wilson pleaded guilty in 1997 to possession of a firearm by a felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and was sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), to a 15-year mandatory minimum based on three prior convictions (Maryland robbery, D.C. assault with a deadly weapon, and a 1988 D.C. serious drug offense).
- The ACCA definition of “violent felony” then included an elements clause, an enumerated-clause list, and a residual clause (the residual clause covered offenses that “otherwise involve[] conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury”).
- In Johnson v. United States (2015), the Supreme Court struck down the ACCA residual clause as unconstitutionally vague; in Welch v. United States (2016), the Court held Johnson (2015) retroactive on collateral review.
- Wilson filed a § 2255 motion after Welch; the Federal Public Defender filed an abridged motion one day late (June 28, 2016) and a full supplemental motion on October 26, 2016.
- The government raised timeliness and procedural-default defenses and urged that Wilson’s prior convictions still qualified under the elements clause; the court examined equitable tolling, cause and prejudice, and whether Maryland robbery satisfies the ACCA elements clause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wilson) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of § 2255 claim | FPD filed one-day late but diligently and supplemented timely; equitable tolling applies | Motion was one day late and thus untimely | Equitable tolling applied; motion treated as timely |
| Must petitioner prove sentencing court actually relied on residual clause? | No; petitioner need only show the sentence might have rested on the residual clause | Yes; government urged petitioner must show actual reliance | Court held proof of actual reliance is not required; uncertainty suffices |
| Procedural default (failure to raise on direct appeal) | Johnson (2015) was unforeseeable; cause and prejudice exist because the residual clause was later invalidated and ACCA produced substantial additional punishment | Claim is defaulted because not raised earlier | Court found cause (novel rule) and prejudice (15-year mandatory vs 10-year max) and excused default |
| Merits: Does Maryland common-law robbery qualify as an ACCA "violent felony" under the elements clause? | Maryland robbery requires force or threat, but the force can be minimal (e.g., jostling or ripping a purse strap) and thus may be less than "violent force" required by Johnson (2010) | Maryland robbery requires overcoming resistance or violence and is equivalent to "physical force" in Johnson (2010) | Court held Maryland robbery does not necessarily require the degree of violent force in Johnson (2010); therefore it is not a qualifying ACCA violent felony, rendering Wilson’s ACCA sentence unlawful |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (invalidated ACCA residual clause as unconstitutionally vague)
- Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016) (held Johnson (2015) retroactive on collateral review)
- Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (2010) (construed "physical force" in ACCA elements clause as "violent force")
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013) (explains categorical approach for determining whether prior convictions qualify under ACCA)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (categorical approach and when to compare elements vs. statutory variants)
- Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (2008) (limits ACCA coverage to crimes similar in kind to enumerated offenses)
- Zant v. Stephens, 462 U.S. 862 (1983) (general verdict doctrine; verdict must be set aside if it could rest on an invalid ground)
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010) (standard for equitable tolling: diligence and extraordinary circumstance)
- Moncrieffe v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 1678 (2013) (categorical-analysis principle that an alternative means that falls outside the federal definition defeats qualification)
- United States v. Redrick, 841 F.3d 478 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (observing that Johnson (2015) could not reasonably have been anticipated)
- United States v. Winston, 850 F.3d 677 (4th Cir. 2017) (holding a petitioner need not show explicit reliance on the residual clause when sentence may have rested on it)