Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

appealfelony
jurisdiction

Related Cases

Morales v. United States, 248 A.3d 161
View Case »
Swift & Co. v. Schuster, 192 F.2d 615
View Case »
Tamsen v. Weber, 166 Ariz. 364, 802 P.2d 1063
View Case »
McFarlane v. City of Niagara Falls, 247 N.Y. 340, 160 N.E. 391, 57 A.L.R. 1
View Case »
Sivit v. Village Green of Beachwood, L.P., 143 Ohio St.3d 168, 35 N.E.3d 508, 2015-Ohio-1193
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

White v. United States, 8 F.4th 547

Facts

In 2011, Jason White was involved in a fistfight where he shot Christopher Evans. White was charged and convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm in 2013. His lengthy criminal history included multiple convictions, and during sentencing, the court designated him as an armed career criminal based on several prior convictions. After a change in law, White filed a § 2255 petition to challenge his sentence, arguing that one of the convictions used for the enhancement was no longer valid.

In 2011, Jason White and Christopher Evans engaged in a fistfight outside a nightclub in Brooklyn, Illinois (just across the Mississippi River from St. Louis).

Issue

Did the district court err in substituting a previous conviction for another to support an enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) and did White have fair notice of the predicate convictions?

1 movant waived for appellate review claim that substituting previous conviction for another to support an enhancement under Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) did not comport with fair notice principles;

Rule

Under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), a person with three prior convictions for a violent felony or serious drug offense is subject to an enhanced sentence. A claim not raised on direct appeal generally may not be raised for the first time on collateral review, leading to procedural default.

Section 2255 provides possible relief for a federal prisoner who argues their sentence 'was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or [if] the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or [if] the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law.'

Analysis

The court found that White had fair notice of the government's reliance on his 2003 drug delivery conviction as a predicate for the ACCA enhancement. Despite his claims, the court noted that White had multiple opportunities to object to the use of this conviction and failed to do so. Additionally, the court ruled that White's failure to raise certain arguments on direct appeal constituted procedural default, which he could not overcome.

White did not offer any arguments in his opening brief regarding fair notice or the substitution of one predicate conviction for another when determining career offender status.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the denial of White's § 2255 petition, concluding that he had fair notice of the predicate convictions and that he had waived and procedurally defaulted his claims.

We therefore affirm the denial of his petition.

Who won?

The United States prevailed in the case because the court found that White had fair notice of the predicate convictions and failed to preserve his claims for appeal.

The court affirmed the denial of White's § 2255 petition, concluding that he had fair notice of the predicate convictions and that he had waived and procedurally defaulted his claims.

You must be