United States v. Frank M. Howard
2014 WL 630657, 742 F.3d 1334 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state criminal statute is indivisible for the purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) analysis if it provides a single, overbroad definition of an element and then lists non-exhaustive, illustrative examples of what that definition includes, rather than setting out alternative elements. A conviction under such a non-generic, indivisible statute cannot qualify as an ACCA predicate offense.
Facts:
- On April 28, 2011, police received a report about a gray Cadillac parked at a vacant house.
- Officers responded and found Frank Howard in the driver's seat of the Cadillac, which he owned, along with two other men.
- After smelling marijuana, officers ordered the men out of the car.
- During an inventory search of the vehicle prior to towing it, officers found a .40-caliber Glock pistol and a tag receipt with Howard's name on it inside the glove compartment.
- A database search revealed the pistol had been reported stolen.
- Howard had prior felony convictions, including multiple convictions for third-degree burglary under Alabama law.
Procedural Posture:
- A federal grand jury indicted Frank Howard on one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm in the U.S. District Court.
- Howard's first trial ended in a hung jury.
- Following a second trial, a jury convicted Howard.
- At sentencing, the district court applied the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) enhancement, finding Howard's prior Alabama convictions for third-degree burglary qualified as 'violent felonies.'
- The district court imposed a sentence of 235 months imprisonment.
- Howard (Appellant) appealed his conviction and sentence to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a conviction under Alabama’s third-degree burglary statute, which defines the term "building" with a single, overbroad definition that includes a non-exhaustive list of examples like vehicles, qualify as a "violent felony" under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Descamps v. United States?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge Carnes
No, a conviction under Alabama's third-degree burglary statute does not qualify as a violent felony under the ACCA because the statute is non-generic and indivisible. The Supreme Court's decision in Descamps v. United States restricts the application of the 'modified categorical approach' to statutes that are 'divisible,' meaning they set out one or more elements of an offense in the alternative. Alabama's third-degree burglary statute is non-generic because its definition of a 'building' includes locations like vehicles and watercraft, which are broader than the generic federal definition of burglary. The statute is also indivisible because it provides a single definition of 'building' and then uses the word 'includes' to offer a non-exhaustive, illustrative list of examples that fall under that definition, rather than listing alternative elements. Because the statute contains a single, overbroad, and indivisible set of elements, a court cannot look to underlying case documents to determine the facts of the conviction. Therefore, a conviction under this statute can never qualify as a generic burglary for ACCA purposes.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the application of the Supreme Court's Descamps framework for analyzing prior convictions under the ACCA. It establishes that a statute defining a criminal element with a single, overbroad definition followed by illustrative examples (using words like 'includes') is considered 'indivisible.' This holding significantly narrows the circumstances under which federal courts can apply the modified categorical approach to look beyond the statutory text. The ruling prevents prior convictions under such statutes from qualifying as ACCA predicates, potentially leading to lower sentences for defendants with similar criminal histories in states with broadly drafted statutes.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Frank M. Howard