STEELE v. USA
ORDER re 8 Stipulation of the Parties - The Court concludes that the parties' stipulation is fair and just under the law and hereby GRANTS Petitioner's Motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Petitioner shall be sentenced to time served to be followed by a 3-year term of supervised release. A Judgment and Commitment in the associate criminal matter shall be forthcoming. Judgment consistent with this Order shall issue in this matter. This Order shall also be entered on the docket in the underlying criminal action, United States v. Steele, Cause No. 1:91-cr-00105-LJM-DKL-1. Signed by Judge Larry J. McKinney on 4/12/2017. Electronic Notice to USPO.(JKS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
ROBERT DALE STEELE,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Petitioner Robert Dale Steele (“Petitioner”) and the United States of America (the
“Government”) have filed a stipulation regarding his motion for relief from the judgment in
Petitioner’s criminal matter, 1:91-cr-00105-LJM-DKL-1, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255,
Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), and Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct.
Petitioner was convicted as a felon in possession under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). At
the time of sentencing, he was sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18
U.S.C. § 924(e) (“ACCA”), to a term of 230 months to be followed by a 5-year term of
supervised release; a Judgment and Conviction was entered to that effect on May 8,
1992. The predicate felonies giving rise to Petitioner’s status under the ACCA were: (1)
burglary in Escambia County, Florida; (2) burglary in Okaloosa County, Florida; (3)
burglary in Hillsboro County, Florida; (4) attempted sexual battery in Putnam County,
Florida; and (5) burglary in Kokomo County, Indiana. CM/ECF Dkt. No. 8, ¶ 2, and
presentence investigation report cited therein.
On June 26, 2015, the United States Supreme Court held the residual clause of
the ACCA unconstitutional. Johnson, 135 S. Ct. 2551. Subsequently, the U.S. Supreme
Court Seventh Circuit held that Johnson announced a new substantive rule of
constitutional law that the Supreme Court had categorically made retroactive. Welch, 136
S. Ct. at 1257.
By stipulation of the parties, Petitioner’s burglary convictions relied upon the ACCA
residual clause for classification as violent felonies; therefore, Petitioner and the
Government further “stipulate that a sufficient number of prior convictions which would
account for ACCA status do not exist.” Dkt. No. 8, ¶ 4. Moreover, based on the underlying
facts of the case and this analysis, the parties agree that the sentence imposed in this
case as unconstitutional in that it exceeded the otherwise applicable statutory maximum
penalty under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) of 10 years of incarceration and 3 years of supervised
release. Dkt. No. 8, ¶ 6.
Petitioner was release from the Bureau of Prison on October 17, 2016. Dkt. No.
However, the 5-year term of supervised release remains unconstitutional; and the parties
have stipulated that a sentence of time served and a 3-year term of supervised release
is sufficient, but not greater than necessary. Dkt. No. 8, ¶ 6.
The Court agrees that Petitioner’s previous sentence was unconstitutional and that
a reduction in his term of supervised release is necessary pursuant to Johnson and
Welch. The Court concludes that the parties’ stipulation is fair and just under the law and
hereby GRANTS Petitioner’s Motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Petitioner shall be
sentenced to time served to be followed by a 3-year term of supervised release. A
Judgment and Commitment in the associate criminal matter shall be forthcoming.
Judgment consistent with this Order shall issue in this matter.
This Order shall also be entered on the docket in the underlying criminal
action, United States v. Steele, Cause No. 1:91-cr-00105-LJM-DKL-1.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of April, 2017.
LARRY J. McKINNEY, JUDGE
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
Sara J. Varner
INDIANA FEDERAL COMMUNITY DEFENDERS
James Robert Wood
OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?