Williams v. United States
| Decision Date | 07 February 2018 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO.: 5:16-cv-49,Case No.: 5:14-cr-14 |
| Parties | HARRY THOMAS WILLIAMS, Movant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia |
On June 25, 2015, this Court sentenced Harry Thomas Williams ("Williams") to fifteen years' imprisonment under the Armed Career Criminal Act ("ACCA") after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, as well as to one count of possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. Williams, who is currently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Jesup, Georgia, has now filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct his Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Doc. 52.)1 Williams contends that the Court must resentence him following the United States Supreme Court's decision in Johnson v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (June 26, 2015). However, Johnson only invalidated the ACCA's residual clause, and Williams has failed to demonstrate that the Court relied upon that clause in any way during in his sentencing proceedings. To the contrary, the record reveals that the Court properly sentenced Williams as an armed career criminal under other provisions of the ACCA due to his prior convictions for sale and distribution of cocaine,possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, and burglary. Williams also claims that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to object to his designation as an armed career criminal and failure to investigate an insanity defense. However, Williams has failed to show that his counsel's performance fell below the objective standard of reasonableness, and he has failed to show that he suffered prejudice from his counsel's alleged deficiencies.
For these reasons, which I detail more fully below, Williams' claims lack merit. Therefore, I RECOMMEND the Court DENY Williams' Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct his Sentence. (Doc. 52.) Further, I RECOMMEND that the Court DENY Williams a Certificate of Appealability and in forma pauperis status on appeal. The Court should DIRECT the Clerk of Court to CLOSE this case and enter the appropriate judgment of dismissal. The Court GRANTS Williams' Leave to Amend his Reply, (doc. 62), and the Court has considered the assertions in that pleading when ruling on this matter.
The Court typically begins its discussion of a matter by detailing the factual and procedural background of the case before it. However, the facts and history of Williams' case will be better understood by first discussing the federal statutes under which Williams was prosecuted and recent cases pertinent to those laws.
Federal law prohibits certain persons, including convicted felons, from shipping, possessing, or receiving firearms in or affecting interstate commerce. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Ordinarily, an individual who violates this prohibition faces a statutory maximum sentence of ten years' imprisonment. 18 U.S.C. § 924(a). However, a statutory provision known as the "ArmedCareer Criminal Act" or "ACCA" imposes a higher mandatory minimum term of imprisonment for certain offenders. Any person who violates Section 922(g) and has on three or more occasions been convicted for a "serious drug offense" or "violent felony" will receive a mandatory minimum sentence of fifteen years' imprisonment. 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). The ACCA provides, in relevant part:
18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B).2
The first prong of this definition, set forth in subsection (i), has come to be known as the "elements clause," while the crimes listed at the beginning of the subsection (ii), "burglary, arson, or extortion, or involves use of explosives," have come to be known as the "enumerated crimes." United States v. Owens, 672 F.3d 966, 968 (11th Cir. 2012). Finally, the last portion of subsection (ii), "or otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another," is commonly referred to as the "residual clause." Id.
In the landmark case of Johnson, ___ U.S. at ___, 135 S. Ct. at 2563, the Supreme Court held that "imposing an increased sentence under the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act violates the Constitution's guarantee of due process[.]" Thus, the Court struck down that portion of the ACCA. However, the Court also emphasized that its "decision does notcall into question application of the Act to the four enumerated offenses, or the remainder of the Act's definition of a violent felony." Id. In Welch v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 1257, 1264-65 (Apr. 18, 2016), the Supreme Court held that Johnson announced a new substantive rule that applies retroactively to cases on collateral review.
While the four enumerated crimes (or the "enumerated crimes clause") have not suffered the same fate as the residual clause, they have been the subject of numerous recent decisions of the Supreme Court and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. These decisions inform an analysis that is more complicated than would appear at first blush: whether an offender's prior conviction that bears the label of an enumerated crime actually constitutes a conviction for one of the enumerated offenses for purposes of the ACCA. Rather than merely relying on the label attached to an offender's prior conviction, federal courts must assess whether the defendant committed one of the enumerated crimes actually envisioned upon the passage of the ACCA. To conduct this inquiry, a sentencing court must assess the elements forming the basis of the offender's conviction and compare those elements to the "generic crime-i.e., the offense as commonly understood." Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254, 257 (2013).
Decisions regarding whether a burglary conviction qualifies as an ACCA predicate offense demonstrate how courts approach the enumerated crimes. Though the ACCA specifically lists "burglary" as a violent felony, merely because a state conviction is labeled a "burglary" does not automatically qualify it as a predicate offense under the ACCA. Rather, "[a]s the [ACCA] has been interpreted, a conviction for 'generic burglary' counts as a violent felony, while a conviction for 'non-generic burglary' does not." United States v. Ranier, 616 F.3d 1212, 1213 (11th Cir. 2010), abrogated on other grounds by United States v. Howard, 742 F.3d 1334 (11th Cir. 2014). A "generic" burglary is "any crime, regardless of its exact definitionor label, having the basic elements of unlawful or unprivileged entry into, or remaining in, a building or structure, with intent to commit a crime." Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 599 (1990). A "non-generic" burglary is one that "do[es] not include all of the elements essential to generic burglaries," including burglaries of boats, automobiles, and other non-buildings. Ranier, 616 F.3d at 1214.
As with all enumerated crimes, to assess whether a state conviction for burglary qualifies as a generic crime, the Court can employ two methods. First, the Court must assess the state statute under "the categorical approach." Howard, 742 F.3d at 1345-46. If that assessment does not end the inquiry, then the Court must determine whether the statute can be assessed under the "modified categorical approach." Id. Under the "categorical approach," courts "compare the elements of the statute forming the basis of the defendant's conviction with the elements of the 'generic' crime-i.e., the offense as commonly understood." Descamps, 570 U.S. at 257. Under this approach, "[t]he prior conviction qualifies as an ACCA predicate only if the statute's elements are the same as, or narrower than, those of the generic offense." Id. If the statute so qualifies, then this ends the inquiry: the conviction is a violent felony, and the modified categorical approach is not needed. Howard, 742 F.3d at 1345.
However, if the burglary statute is broader than the elements of the generic crime, the statute itself does not qualify as a predicate offense under the categorical approach. Thus, the court must then determine whether it can apply the "modified categorical approach" to assess whether the defendant's conviction under the statute does qualify as a predicate offense. Id. Courts can use the modified categorical approach in those instances "when a prior conviction is for violating a so-called divisible statute." Descamps, 570 U.S. at 257. A divisible statute is a statute which Id.
To determine which alternative of a divisible statute formed the basis for the prior conviction, a court can assess a limited class of documents including the charging document, written plea agreement, transcript of plea colloquy, and any explicit factual finding by the trial judge. Shephard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 16 (2005). These documents are commonly referred to as "Shephard documents." If a statute is divisible, the Court can...
To continue reading
Request your trial