United States v. Murphy

Defendant-Appellant John Murphy appealed the dismissal of his second motion to vacate his sentence. Murphy pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment and 5 years’ supervised release. Under 18 U.S.C. 924(a)(2), being a felon in possession of a firearm was ordinarily punishable by a maximum of 10 years’ imprisonment. But pursuant to the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), Murphy received a sentencing enhancement because he had three previous convictions for violent felonies. Specifically, the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) advised that Murphy’s previous convictions for burglary (two in Oregon and one in Wyoming) were “burglaries” within the meaning of section 924(e), as defined by Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990). Murphy did not object to the PSR, and the government and Murphy agreed at his sentencing hearing that he was eligible for the ACCA enhancement because his previous convictions matched Taylor’s definition of burglary. Murphy did not appeal his conviction or sentence. In 2009, Murphy filed his first 18 U.S.C. 2255 motion, alleging that his counsel provided ineffective assistance by not objecting to the classification of his burglary convictions as violent felonies, and urged the sentencing court to apply the categorical approach outlined in Taylor to determine if his previous convictions matched the generic definition of burglary. The district court denied his motion on the grounds that his previous convictions matched Taylor’s definition of burglary because in all three, “he made an unlawful or unprivileged entry into a building or structure, with the intent to commit a crime therein.” Murphy did not appeal from the district court’s denial of his motion. In 2016, Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015) invalidated the ACCA’s residual clause. The Tenth Circuit authorized Murphy to file a second section 2255 motion. In the second motion, Murphy argued his sentence should be vacated because: (1) the state statutes for his previous convictions were broader than the generic definition of burglary; (2) if he was not sentenced under the enumerated offense clause, he must have been sentenced under the residual clause; (3) Johnson invalidated the residual clause, therefore his sentence should be vacated. The district court found Murphy’s argument failed at the first step because “the record is clear that Murphy’s ACCA enhancement was based upon the enumerated offenses clause - not the residual clause.” It consequently dismissed Murphy’s motion but granted a certificate of appealability on the issue. The Tenth Circuit found Murphy essentially “raises a poorly disguised Taylor claim rather than a true Johnson claim. … Murphy (unsuccessfully) argued in his first [section] 2255 motion that his previous convictions were not violent felonies under Taylor. Accordingly, the district court correctly dismissed his second [section] 2255 motion.” View "United States v. Murphy" on Justia Law