Opinion
2:12-cr-00300-JAD-GWF-1
06-06-2016
Order Denying Motion to Vacate Sentence Under 28 USC § 2255
[ECF No. 41]
Pro se prisoner Charles Alonzo Yancy brings this § 2255 motion to vacate his 110-month sentence in light of the United States Supreme Court's decision last term in Johnson v. United States, in which the Court held that the Armed Career Criminal Act's residual clause is void for vagueness. In 2013, Yancy pleaded guilty to possession of a stolen firearm, and he was sentenced to the statutory maximum sentence of ten years' imprisonment. Johnson does not provide Yancy any relief because Yancy was not sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act, let alone under the Act's residual clause invalidated by Johnson. If Yancy had been sentenced under the ACCA, he would have been subjected to a mandatory minimum term of fifteen years' imprisonment. Yancy's 110-month sentence (and the offense of conviction) belie his claim that he was adjudicated an armed career criminal under the ACCA's residual clause, and Johnson is thus inapplicable.
ECF No. 41; Johnson v. United States,___U.S.___, 135 S.Ct. 2251, 2258 (2015).
ECF No. 29.
ECF No. 38.
Yancy was originally charged with one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm—an offense that could have potentially subjected him to the ACCA. Yancy ultimately pleaded guilty to the superseding indictment charging him with possession of a stolen firearm, presumably to avoid the ambit of the ACCA. This may be why Yancy believes that Johnson applies to his sentence. It may be that Johnson undermined the benefit Yancy received under his plea bargain, but because Yancy was not sentenced under the ACCA's residual clause, Johnson does not afford him any relief. --------
Conclusion
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Yancy's motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in light of Johnson v. United States [ECF No. 41] is DENIED.
Dated this 6th day of June, 2016.
/s/_________
Jennifer A. Dorsey
United States District Judge