Gurule v. USA
Filing
10
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying and dismissing with prejudice 1 Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence (2255). Petitioner is also denied a certificate of appealability. Signed by Judge David Nuffer on 7/10/18 (alt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
THOMAS RAY GURULE,
Petitioner,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER DENYING AND DISMISSING
§ 2255 MOTION
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
Civil No. 2:16-cv-00625-DN
(Criminal No. 2:04-cr-00209-DN-1)
District Judge David Nuffer
Petitioner Thomas Ray Gurule seeks to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28
U.S.C. § 2255. 1 He argues 2 his sentence is unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court’s
holding in Johnson v. United States. 3 He also argues his § 2255 Motion is timely4 because it was
filed within one year of the newly recognized right in Johnson. However, Johnson did not create
a new right applicable to Mr. Gurule or his sentence. So, because Mr. Gurule filed his § 2255
Motion more than one year after his judgment of conviction became final, his § 2255 Motion is
untimely and his § 2255 Motion 5 is DENIED and DISMISSED.
1
Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody
(“§ 2255 Motion”), docket no. 1, filed June 10, 2016.
2
Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (“Memorandum”) at 3-9, docket no. 2, filed June 10, 2016.
3
135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015).
4
Memorandum at 10.
5
Docket no. 1, filed June 10, 2016.
BACKGROUND
On April 7, 2004, Mr. Gurule was indicted on one count of carjacking under 18 U.S.C.
§ 2119. 6 Mr. Gurule pleaded not guilty and his case proceeded to trial. 7 On June 29, 2004, a jury
returned a guilty verdict. 8 Mr. Gurule was then sentenced on December 17, 2004. 9 He received a
mandatory life sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3559(c)(1), 10 “also known as the federal ‘three
strikes’ statute[.]” 11 This was based on Mr. Gurule’s two prior Utah state court convictions for
robbery, 12 which were found to be “serious violent felon[ies.]” under the three strikes statute. 13
Mr. Gurule appealed his conviction and sentence, 14 and the Tenth Circuit Court of
Appeals affirmed. 15 A final judgment of conviction was filed October 2, 2006. 16
Subsequently, on June 10, 2016, Mr. Gurule filed a § 2255 Motion 17 seeking to vacate,
set aside, or correct his sentence. Mr. Gurule argues that his right to due process was violated
because he was sentenced under the three strikes statute’s residual clause, which is
unconstitutionally vague. 18
6
Indictment, ECF no. 1 in case no. 2:04-cr-00209-DN-1 (“Criminal Case”), filed April 7, 2004.
7
Minutes of the United States District Court for the District of Utah, ECF no. 6 in Criminal Case, filed Apr. 19,
2004; Minutes of the United States District court for the District of Utah, ECF no. 23 in Criminal Case, filed June
28, 2004.
8
Verdict, ECF no. 24 in Criminal Case, filed June 29, 2004.
9
Thomas Ray Gurule Minutes of the United States District Court for the District of Utah, ECF no. 46 in Criminal
Case, filed Dec. 17, 2004.
10
Id.; Judgment in a Criminal Case, ECF no. 48 in Criminal Case, filed Dec. 17, 2004.
11
United States v. Contreras, 689 Fed. App’x 886, 887 (10th Cir. 2017).
12
Memorandum at 1; Response at 3 (citing State v. Gurule, Case # 9194-3 (2d Jud. Dist. Crt. Weber Cty. UT 1969);
State v. Gurule, Case # CR-88-997 (3d Jud. Dist. Crt. Salt Lake Cty. UT 1988)).
13
United States v. Gurule, 461 F.3d 1238, 1240 (10th Cir. 2006).
14
Notice of Appeal, ECF no. 49 in Criminal Case, filed Dec. 22, 2004.
15
Gurule, 461 F.3d 1238.
16
Judgment, ECF no. 62 in Criminal Case, filed Oct. 2, 2006.
17
Docket no. 1, filed June 10, 2016.
18
Memorandum at 3-9.
2
DISCUSSION
For all motions brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, “[u]nless the motion and files and
records of the case conclusively show that the [movant] is entitled to no relief,” notice of the
motion must be provided to the government and a hearing must be held. 19 However, “[i]f it
plainly appears from the [§ 2255] motion, any attached exhibits, and the record of prior
proceedings that the moving party is not entitled to relief, the [examining] judge must dismiss the
motion and direct the clerk to notify the moving party.” 20
Under § 2255, a prisoner held in federal custody may move the court to vacate, set aside,
or correct the prisoner’s sentence “upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of
the Constitution or law of the United States . . . or is otherwise subject to collateral attack[.]” 21
But before the merits of a prisoner’s claim may be addressed, the prisoner “must show that he
can satisfy the procedural requirements of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act
[(“AEDPA”)].” 22 “The first of these barriers is timeliness.” 23
“Pursuant to AEDPA, post-conviction motions for habeas relief filed under § 2255 must
be brought within one year of the date on which ‘the judgment of conviction becomes final’ or
‘the right asserted [by petitioner] was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if that right has
been newly recognized by the Supreme court and made retroactively applicable to cases on
collateral review.’” 24
19
28 U.S.C. § 2255(b).
20
Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings Rule 4(b).
21
28 U.S.C. § 2255(a).
22
United States v. Greer, 881 F.3d 1241, 1244 (10th Cir. 2018).
23
Id.
24
Id. (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1), (3)).
3
As noted above, Mr. Gurule argues that his § 2255 Motion is timely25 because it was filed
within one year of the newly recognized right in Johnson v. United States. 26 In Johnson, the
Supreme Court held that “imposing an increased sentence under the residual clause of the Armed
Career Criminal Act [(“ACCA”)] violates the Constitution’s guarantee of due process.” 27 This
was because the residual clause of the ACCA’s definition of “violent felony” 28 is
unconstitutionally vague—“the indeterminacy of the wide-ranging inquiry required by the
residual clause both denies fair notice to defendants and invites arbitrary enforcement by
judges.” 29 The Supreme Court subsequently determined in Welch v. United States that Johnson’s
holding applies retroactively to cases on collateral review. 30
However, in United States v. Greer, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held that “the
only right recognized by the Supreme court in Johnson was a defendant’s right not to have his
sentence increased under the residual clause of the ACCA.” 31 Prisoners sentenced under other
similarly worded statutes, though “present[ing] a compelling argument for finding the [statutes]
unconstitutional,” do not fall within the new right recognized in Johnson. 32
For such prisoners “attempting to apply the reasoning of Johnson in a different context
not considered by the [Supreme] Court . . . relief is not available on [§ 2255] collateral
review.” 33 This is because “[o]nly the Supreme Court can recognize a new constitutional
25
Memorandum at 10.
26
135 S.Ct. 2551.
27
Id. at 2563.
28
18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii).
29
Johnson, 135 S.Ct. at 2557.
30
136 S.Ct. 1257, 1268 (2017).
31
881 F.3d 1241, 1248 (10th Cir. 2018).
32
Id. at 1247.
33
Id. at 1248 (emphasis in original).
4
right.” 34 “While circuit courts can apply the reasoning of Johnson to support a finding that the
residual clause of similarly worded statutes are unconstitutionally vague on direct appeal . . .
AEDPA limits federal habeas relief to new constitutional rights recognized by the Supreme
Court.” 35
The Tenth Circuit’s precedent in Greer is binding in this case. Mr. Gurule was sentenced
under the federal three strikes statute, not the ACCA. Therefore, Johnson is inapplicable for
purposes of establishing the timeliness of Mr. Gurule’s § 2255 Motion.
Because the Supreme Court has not recognized a new constitutional right applicable to
Mr. Gurule, the limitations period for his § 2255 Motion accrued one year after the date his
judgment of conviction became final. 36 This occurred October 3, 2007. 37 Consequently, Mr.
Gurule’s June 10, 2016 filing of his § 2255 Motion 38 was untimely.
34
Id. at 1247 (citing Dodd v. United States, 545 U.S. 353, 357-59 (2005)).
35
Id. (emphasis in original).
36
28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1).
37
Judgment, ECF no. 62 in Criminal Case.
38
Docket no. 1, filed June 10, 2016.
5
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Mr. Gurule’s § 2255 Motion 39 is DENIED and
DISMISSED with prejudice. This dismissal does not preclude Mr. Gurule from seeking future
relief under § 2255 upon the Supreme Court’s recognition of a new right that is applicable to
him. 40
IT IS FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules
Governing Section 2255 Proceedings, Mr. Gurule is DENIED a certificate of appealability.
The Clerk is directed to close the case.
Signed July 10, 2018.
BY THE COURT
________________________________________
District Judge David Nuffer
39
Id.
40
28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3).
6
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?