458 F.Supp.3d 830
M.D. Tenn.2020Background
- June 3, 2015: Three masked men (including movant Dominique Wallace) entered an Express Market in Antioch, TN; during the robbery two people were shot—one (Demontay Thomas) was killed; another store clerk was shot and survived.
- Wallace was indicted in Case No. 3:15-cr-140 on Hobbs Act conspiracy and attempted Hobbs Act robbery, two felon-in-possession counts, and a § 924(j) count (using and discharging a firearm in relation to a crime of violence resulting in murder); he pleaded guilty to all counts without a plea agreement.
- Wallace also pleaded guilty in a separate case (3:15-cr-98) to being a felon in possession of a firearm (June 10, 2015 incident); the cases were consolidated for sentencing.
- The district court sentenced Wallace to a total of 30 years’ imprisonment (20 years on Hobbs Act counts and 10 years on felon-in-possession counts, concurrent; followed by a 10-year § 924(j) sentence); the Sixth Circuit affirmed on direct appeal.
- Wallace filed a § 2255 motion asserting (1) a Rehaif-based challenge to his § 922(g) conviction (he lacked knowledge of his prohibited status) and (2) a Davis-based challenge to his § 924(j) conviction (the conspiracy predicate is not a crime of violence). The government opposed relief.
- The district court denied the § 2255 motion, found no need for an evidentiary hearing, and denied a certificate of appealability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rehaif requires relief on Wallace’s § 922(g) conviction on collateral review | Wallace: he did not know he was a felon/prohibited and Rehaif invalidates his plea | Government: Rehaif is not retroactive on collateral review; guilty plea waives sufficiency challenges | Denied — Rehaif not retroactive to § 2255; plea waived sufficiency challenge |
| Whether Davis invalidates Wallace’s § 924(j) conviction because conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery is not a crime of violence | Wallace: Davis struck the residual clause, so conspiracy predicate fails to qualify as a crime of violence | Government: Hobbs Act robbery (and attempt) qualify under § 924(c)(3)(A) elements clause, preserving the § 924(j) conviction | Denied — attempted/completed Hobbs Act robbery qualifies under the elements clause, so § 924(j) conviction stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019) (gov't must prove defendant knew his prohibited status under § 922(g))
- Davis v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019) (§ 924(c)(3)(B) residual clause is unconstitutionally vague)
- Broce v. United States, 488 U.S. 563 (1989) (guilty plea waives nonjurisdictional defects and challenges to sufficiency of evidence)
- Williams v. United States, 503 U.S. 193 (1992) (court may affirm despite legal error if record shows same sentence would have been imposed)
- United States v. Gooch, 850 F.3d 285 (6th Cir. 2017) (Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence under § 924(c)(3)(A))
- United States v. Ledbetter, 929 F.3d 338 (6th Cir. 2019) (discussing impact of Davis on conspiracy predicates)
- United States v. St. Hubert, 909 F.3d 335 (11th Cir. 2018) (attempted Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence under § 924(c)(3)(A))
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (standard for certificate of appealability)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (clarifies COA standards)