Triplett v. United States of America

Filing 2

ORDER denying 1 Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence (2255);mailed to Ronnie Glenn Triplett #15692-064 EL RENO-FCI P O Box 1500 El Reno, OK 73036. Signed by Honorable Robin J. Cauthron on 10/6/16. (lg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
RONNIE GLENN TRIPLETT,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CR-04-62-C
CIV-16-469-C

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On June 10, 2004, Defendant entered a plea of guilty to Counts 1, 2, and 4 of the
Indictment. Count 1 charged Defendant with distribution of methamphetamine, Count 2
charged distribution of methamphetamine, and Count 4 charged possession of a firearm and
ammunition that traveled in interstate commerce by a convicted felon. At sentencing the
Court determined that the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924 (“ACCA”), applied
and imposed a sentence of 188 months. Defendant sought relief from his sentence via a
direct appeal and 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Each of the challenges were denied and the Court’s
sentence affirmed. Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v. United States, ___
U.S. ___, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), Defendant sought and obtained permission from the Tenth
Circuit to file a second or successive Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Defendant has now filed his § 2255 Motion and argues that
his sentence should be reduced. To assist Defendant in prosecuting his claim, the Court
appointed counsel for Defendant. Counsel filed a brief adopting and amplifying the

arguments raised in Defendant’s pro se Motion. Counsel also filed a Reply brief in support
of the issues.*
In support of his second or successive § 2255 Motion, Defendant argues that his
sentence under the ACCA was imposed on the basis of two prior drug offenses and one
violent felony under the residual clause. Therefore, Defendant argues, because the Supreme
Court has held the residual clause void, he is eligible for a reduction in his sentence. In
response, Plaintiff argues that the ACCA still applies because Defendant has three prior drug
convictions, not two. The three serious drug offenses were possession of a dangerous
controlled substance with the intent to distribute, case no. CF-95-3215; trafficking in illegal
drugs case no. CF-96-712; and manufacturing a dangerous controlled substance, case no.
CF-96-18. Defendant’s arguments that these convictions should not be counted as three
individual criminal acts is foreclosed by the Tenth Circuit’s decision in his direct appeal.
In affirming the district court’s imposition of sentence, the Circuit considered
Defendant’s argument that his prior convictions should be counted only as one prior
conviction because they were the result of a single judicial proceeding and term of
incarceration. Rejecting that argument, the Tenth Circuit stated, “[e]nhancement under the
ACCA is proper even if the three prior convictions were the result of a single judicial
proceeding.” United States v. Triplett, 160 F. App’x 753, 762 (10th Cir. 2005) (citing United

*

Defendant filed a pro se letter with the Court, in which he expressed his frustration with
counsel’s representation but did not request new counsel. The Court has considered the arguments
raised by Defendant in his letter (Dkt. No. 107).
2

States v. Green, 967 F.2d 459, 461 (10th Cir. 1992)). “The ACCA only requires that the
felonies be committed on occasions different from one another.” Triplett, 160 F. App’x at
762 (citing United States v. Bolton, 905 F.2d 319, 323 (10th Cir. 1990)). The Circuit went
on to hold “Mr. Triplett’s prior convictions, while arising out of only two judicial
proceedings and resulting in one term of incarceration, stemmed from criminal acts occurring
on different dates and at different locations, which Mr. Triplett does not dispute. Thus, the
district court did not err in treating these convictions as separate for purposes of applying the
ACCA.” Id. Therefore, the Tenth Circuit has conclusively ruled that the ACCA is properly
applied to Defendant based upon his three prior drug convictions. As Plaintiff notes,
Defendant’s arguments to the contrary are based upon the distinction in counting prior
convictions to determine criminal history category versus imposition of a sentence under the
ACCA. Even if the Court were to remove the firearm conviction, which it must as using that
conviction is now improper under the residual clause, Defendant is still subject to the
provisions of the ACCA and no change in his sentence is permitted.
Accordingly, “Movant’s Second or Successive Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct
Sentence Pursuant to 28 USC §255(h)(2)” (Dkt. No. 94) is DENIED. A separate Judgment
will issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 6th day of October, 2016.

3