Goodman v. United States of America
ORDER GRANTING MOTION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Signed by Judge James D. Todd on 8/11/17. (Todd, James)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Civ. No. 16-1159-JDT-egb
Crim. No. 05-10055-JDT
ORDER GRANTING MOTION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2255
On January 12, 2006, Derrick Goodman entered a guilty plea to one count of possessing a
firearm after having been convicted of a felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g); one count of
possessing a short-barreled shotgun, in violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 5822, 5861(c) and 5871; and
possession of an unregistered firearm, in violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 5841, 5861(d) and 5871. (No.
05-10055, Crim. ECF Nos. 23 & 24.) At sentencing the Court determined, based on his three prior
Tennessee state-court convictions for aggravated burglary, that Goodman qualified for an enhanced
sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). See also U.S.S.G.
§ 4B1.4. He was sentenced to a 180-month term of imprisonment and a three-year term of
supervised release on each count, to run concurrently. (No. 05-10055, Crim. ECF Nos. 44 & 45.)
Goodman appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. United States v. Goodman, No. 06-6572,
slip op. at 2 (6th Cir. Oct. 23, 2007).
On June 17, 2016, through counsel, Goodman filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255
contending that his sentence is unlawful under the decision in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct.
2551 (2015). (ECF No. 1.) In Johnson, the Supreme Court held the residual clause of the ACCA
was unconstitutionally vague and that increasing a defendant’s sentence under the clause is,
therefore, a denial of due process. 135 S. Ct. at 2563. The decision in Johnson later was held to be
retroactive and thus applicable to cases on collateral review. Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257
At the time of Goodman’s sentencing, it was the law in the Sixth Circuit that Tennessee
aggravated burglary qualified as a categorical violent felony under the ACCA’s enumerated offenses
clause, not under the residual clause. See United States v. Sawyers, 409 F.3d 732 (2005), cited in
United States v. Nance, 481 F.3d 882, 888 (6th Cir. 2007). However, the Sixth Circuit has now
overruled Nance in United States v. Stitt, 860 F.3d 854, 860-61 (6th Cir. 2017) (en banc). In Stitt,
the Court of Appeals held that “[b]ecause Tennessee’s aggravated-burglary statute is both broader
than generic burglary under the categorical approach and indivisible, a conviction under the statute
does not count as a violent felony under the ACCA.” Id. at 862. As a result of that decision,
Goodman’s prior Tennessee convictions for aggravated burglary can no longer be used as predicate
offenses under either the enumerated offenses clause or the residual clause of the ACCA. Therefore,
Goodman no longer qualifies as an armed career criminal and is entitled to relief under § 2255.
Goodman has filed a motion asking that he be granted immediate release from incarceration.
(ECF No. 9.) Absent the ACCA enhancement, the maximum prison sentence Goodman could have
received was 10 years or 120 months, which he has already served. At a status conference held on
August 10, 2017, the United States agreed that Goodman’s § 2255 motion should be granted and an
amended criminal judgment entered sentencing him to time served.
Because Goodman no longer qualifies for an enhanced sentence under the ACCA, the motion
under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is GRANTED. The judgment in the criminal proceeding is hereby SET
ASIDE. The Clerk is directed to prepare an amended criminal judgment sentencing Goodman to
time served and three years of supervised release on each count, to run concurrent.
The Clerk is also directed to prepare a judgment in this civil case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ James D. Todd
JAMES D. TODD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?