United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-11169

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Devoris Lamont Jackson, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:18-CR-637

Before Smith, Costa, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Gregg Costa, Circuit Judge:

When Devoris Jackson unlawfully possessed a firearm, our precedent

did not treat his burglary convictions as violent felonies that could enhance 

his sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). But by the time 

he was sentenced for the gun crime, the Supreme Court had rejected our 

view. The district court thus counted Jackson’s burglary convictions as 

violent felonies. The principal issue on appeal is whether using the new 

precedent to enhance Jackson’s sentence violated due process.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 30, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-11169 Document: 00516260451 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/30/2022
No. 20-11169

2

I

It is unlawful for felons to possess a firearm. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). 

Felon-in-possession convictions typically carry a maximum ten-year penalty. 

18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2). But the ACCA increases the penalty to a fifteen-year 

minimum if the defendant “has three previous convictions . . . for a violent 

felony.” Id. § 924(e)(1). A “violent felony” is any crime punishable by more 

than one year in prison that “(i) has as an element the use, attempted use, or 

threatened use of physical force against the person of another; or (ii) is 

burglary, arson, or extortion, [or] involves the use of explosives.” Id. 

§ 924(e)(2)(B).

The district court applied the ACCA at Jackson’s sentencing—

imposing the minimum sentence of fifteen years—after he pled guilty to 

possessing a firearm as a felon. The court treated Jackson’s Texas aggravated 

robbery conviction and two Texas burglary-of-a-habitation convictions as the 

violent felonies compelling the enhanced sentence.

II

As he did in the district court, Jackson concedes that his Texas 

burglary-of-a-habitation convictions qualify as violent felonies under current 

precedent.1

 See United States v. Herrold (Herrold II), 941 F.3d 173, 177, 182 

(5th Cir. 2019) (en banc), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 273 (2020). Jackson argues, 

however, that the Due Process Clause required the district court to instead 

apply our precedent as it existed when he committed the gun crime in August 

2018.

1 He challenges that caselaw only to preserve an attempt to seek its reversal in the 

Supreme Court.

Case: 20-11169 Document: 00516260451 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/30/2022
No. 20-11169

3

Understanding Jackson’s claim requires a brief history of our changing 

precedent on whether Texas burglary of a habitation is an ACCA predicate. 

When Congress named “burglary” a violent felony, it “had in mind a 

modern ‘generic’ view” of the crime. Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 

589 (1990). Generic burglary is the “unlawful or unprivileged entry into, or 

remaining in, a building or structure, with intent to commit a crime.” Id. at 

599. Shortly before Jackson was caught in possession of the firearm, we held 

that Texas burglary of a habitation was broader than generic burglary because 

it reached defendants who formed intent to commit a crime after entering the 

building. United States v. Herrold (Herrold I), 883 F.3d 517, 532–36 (5th Cir. 

2018) (en banc), vacated, 139 S. Ct. 2712 (2019). That precedent was shortlived. The following year, the Supreme Court resolved a circuit split and held 

that generic burglary occurs regardless of when intent is formed. Quarles v. 

United States, 139 S. Ct. 1872, 1875 (2019). Because we were on the wrong 

side of the split, the Supreme Court returned Herrold to us. 139 S. Ct. 2712 

(2019). Bound by stare decisis, we then held that Texas burglary of a 

habitation is generic burglary and thus is a violent felony. Herrold II, 941 F.3d

at 177, 182. Herrold II was on the books when Jackson was sentenced.

Jackson contends that it was unconstitutional for the district court to

apply the law as it existed when he was sentenced rather than when he 

committed the crime. He relies on the due process principle that guarantees

notice of what conduct is criminal and the punishment that attaches to each 

crime. See Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591, 595–96 (2015). One 

corollary of that notice requirement is a bar on the retroactive application of 

a judicial interpretation of a criminal law when the decision is “unexpected 

and indefensible by reference to the law which had been expressed prior to 

the conduct at issue.” Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U.S. 347, 354 (1964).

The “unexpected and indefensible” qualifier recognizes that most 

judicial decisions apply retroactively. After all, an outright prohibition on 

Case: 20-11169 Document: 00516260451 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/30/2022
No. 20-11169

4

retroactive application “would place an unworkable and unacceptable 

restraint on normal judicial processes and would be incompatible with the 

resolution of uncertainty that marks any evolving legal system.” Rogers v. 

Tennessee, 532 U.S. 451, 461 (2001).

What makes a judicial ruling “unexpected and indefensible”? The 

Civil Rights Era case that gave rise to this antiretroactivity doctrine is 

illustrative. In Bouie v. City of Columbia, the Supreme Court invalidated

convictions of two African-American college students who were arrested for

‘sitting in’ at a whites-only lunch counter. 378 U.S. at 348–49. The students 

had been charged under South Carolina’s criminal trespass statute, which 

prohibited “entry” onto another’s property “after notice prohibiting [the]

same.” Id. at 349 n.1. South Carolina courts had long read the statute to 

require pre-entry notice. Id. at 356. The state supreme court nonetheless 

affirmed the students’ convictions, holding that the law also criminalized 

remaining on another’s property after being asked to leave. Id. at 350. That

novel reading of the statute could not be applied retroactively, the Supreme 

Court of the United States held, because the state’s preexisting law did not 

suggest that the students might be jailed for “sit[ting] quietly” in the

restaurant. See id. at 348.

The hallmarks of the Bouie situation when a law cannot apply 

retroactively include stark divergence from the statutory text, departure from

prior caselaw, inconsistency with the expectations of the legislature and law 

enforcement, and the criminalization of otherwise innocent conduct. Bouie, 

378 U.S. at 355–56, 361–63.2 Those hallmarks are absent here.

2 Only one other time has the Supreme Court found a Bouie violation. Marks v. 

United States, 430 U.S. 188 (1977)—a decision better known for trying to explain which of 

many separate opinions in a decision is controlling, see id. at 192–94—barred the retroactive 

application of the obscenity definition announced in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973). 

Case: 20-11169 Document: 00516260451 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/30/2022
No. 20-11169

5

First and foremost, classifying Texas burglary of a habitation as a 

violent felony is not “clearly at variance” with the ACCA’s text. See Bouie, 

378 U.S. at 356. The ACCA defines “violent felony” to include “burglary.” 

18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii). Judges can debate whether this generic 

reference to “burglary” includes a burglary law that allows intent to be 

formed after entry, but a layperson reading the law would likely expect Texas 

burglary to be an ACCA predicate. Contrast Bouie, 378 U.S. at 355–56 

(holding that extending South Carolina’s trespassing statute to remaining on 

another’s property after being asked to leave was inconsistent with the law’s

text barring only “entry” upon another’s property). Treating Texas burglary 

as a violent felony did not read into the statute “an intention which the 

[ACCA’s] words themselves did not suggest.” See id. at 362 (quoting United 

States v. Wiltberger, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 76, 86 (1820) (Marshall, C.J.)).

Nor was counting Jackson’s burglary convictions as violent felonies

“unexpected” in light of precedent. In fact, Herrold I’s fleeting holding—

that Texas burglary of a habitation was not generic burglary—departed from 

a quarter century of Fifth Circuit caselaw. Compare Herrold I, 883 F.3d at

517, with United States v. Silva, 957 F.2d 157, 162 (5th Cir. 1992); United 

States v. Constante, 544 F.3d 584, 586–87 (5th Cir. 2008); and United States 

v. Uribe, 838 F.3d 667, 671 (5th Cir. 2016) (all considering Texas burglary of 

a habitation an ACCA predicate). Herrold I was a closely divided (8-7) en 

banc decision. And it clashed with other circuits’ view that generic burglary 

includes burglaries with post-entry intent. See United States v. Bonilla, 687 

Miller, which asked whether the materials lack “serious literary, artistic, political, or 

scientific value,” punished conduct innocent under the prior “utterly without redeeming 

social value” test. Marks, 430 U.S. at 194. In the 45 years since Marks, the Supreme Court 

thrice has rejected Bouie claims. See Brian R. Means, Postconviction 

Remedies § 41:2 (2021) (reviewing those decisions and generally noting the narrowness 

of the doctrine).

Case: 20-11169 Document: 00516260451 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/30/2022
No. 20-11169

6

F.3d 188, 193–94 (4th Cir. 2012) (finding Texas burglary generic and thus a 

“violent felony” under the ACCA); see also United States v. Priddy, 808 F.3d 

676, 684 (6th Cir. 2015) (deeming Tennessee’s similar burglary statute 

generic). That circuit split created a reasonable likelihood that the Supreme 

Court would resolve the disagreement. It soon did so. Quarles, 139 S. Ct. at 

1872; Herrold, 139 S. Ct. at 2712 (vacating Herrold I and remanding for 

reconsideration in light of Quarles).

That the Supreme Court’s resolution of a circuit split prompted the 

ruling Jackson calls “unexpected and indefensible” reveals bigger problems 

with his argument. It is difficult to see how a high court decision overruling 

an intermediate one could be an unforeseeable change in law; our decisions are 

always subject to Supreme Court review. And it is not even clear that 

applying Herrold II to Jackson was in any way retroactive because it was a 

later phase of the very case he says should control. At a minimum, it is not 

reasonable to treat a divided decision of an intermediate court like ours as 

providing the unalterable notice that Bouie contemplates. Contrast Bouie, 378 

U.S. at 356–57 (noting that the Supreme Court of South Carolina’s ruling 

upholding the trespass prosecution for the sit-in went against almost a 

hundred years of the state high court’s having “uniformly emphasized the 

notice-before-entry requirement”).

Finding a retroactivity problem when a high court overrules a lower 

one would undermine vertical precedent. It would mean that anytime the 

Supreme Court resolves a circuit split on the interpretation of a criminal 

statute in favor of the government, the high court’s decision could not be 

applied to pending prosecutions in the circuit that had taken the prodefendant position (it could not apply even to the Supreme Court defendant 

if the decision reversed circuit precedent that predated the defendant’s 

crime).

Case: 20-11169 Document: 00516260451 Page: 6 Date Filed: 03/30/2022
No. 20-11169

7

We are not aware of any case ever so holding despite this being a 

common occurrence. Consider a Supreme Court decision from just a few 

years before Quarles. Voisine v. United States, 579 U.S. 686 (2016), likewise 

resolved a circuit split in favor of the government, holding that reckless

domestic assault counts as a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” that 

prevents one from possessing a gun. At least two circuits (including ours)

that had pre-Voisine caselaw requiring a mens rea higher than recklessness for

similarly-worded provisions applied the Supreme Court’s reasoning to cases

already in the pipeline when Voisine issued. See United States v. Burris (Burris 

I), 920 F.3d 942, 952–53 (5th Cir. 2019), vacated on other grounds, 141 S. Ct. 

2781 (2021); United States v. Pam, 867 F.3d 1191, 1207–08 (10th Cir. 2017).3

 

The contrary idea—that due process prevents us from applying Supreme 

Court caselaw that overrides earlier circuit precedent to already-pending 

cases—would deprive the Supreme Court of its final say.

What we have said so far is enough to doom Jackson’s due process 

claim. We also note that Quarles did not “make previously innocent conduct 

criminal.” See Proctor v. Cockrell, 283 F.3d 726, 732 (5th Cir. 2002). 

Possessing a firearm with a prior felony conviction was a federal crime long 

before Jackson’s offense. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); contrast Marks, 430 U.S. 

at 191 (finding a due process violation because new definition of obscenity

criminalized acts that were legal at the time of the challenged conduct).

None of the features of the egregious state court decision that led 

Bouie to find a due process violation exist here. And our court has never 

3 These cases’ view that Voisine’s holding about mens rea also governed the 

ACCA’s definition of “violent felony” requiring the “use . . . of physical force” was later 

rejected by the Supreme Court. See Borden v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 1817, 1825 (2021) 

(holding that a crime requiring only a mens rea of recklessness does not qualify as a “violent 

felony” under ACCA’s element clause). Our point, however, is that neither Burris nor 

Pam saw a problem with applying Voisine to crimes that occurred before Voisine issued.

Case: 20-11169 Document: 00516260451 Page: 7 Date Filed: 03/30/2022
No. 20-11169

8

recognized a Bouie violation. See United States v. Kay, 513 F.3d 432, 441–46

(5th Cir. 2007); United States v. Martinez, 496 F.3d 387, 389–90 (5th Cir. 

2007) (both rejecting Bouie claims). Nor have we seen a case from any court 

holding that the Supreme Court’s abrogation of circuit precedent cannot be 

applied to conduct occurring before the high court ruled. This case should 

not be the pioneer in either of those categories. It was neither “unexpected” 

nor “indefensible” when the Supreme Court abrogated an 8-7 decision of our 

en banc court, siding with circuits that had held generic burglary did not 

require intent to commit a crime contemporaneous with entry into the 

building. Applying that same interpretation of the law to crimes occurring in 

this circuit during the brief interregnum between Herrold I and Quarles was 

neither unexpected nor indefensible.

It did not violate due process to count Jackson’s burglary convictions 

as violent felonies.

III

The district court thus properly sentenced Jackson as an armed career 

criminal if his Texas aggravated robbery conviction is a third violent felony. 

This conviction qualifies under the ACCA’s elements clause if it “has as an 

element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against 

the person of another.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i).

On this issue, Jackson is aided rather than hindered by a recent 

Supreme Court decision that abrogated some of our caselaw. A crime falls 

within the elements clause only if it requires the defendant to act with 

purpose or knowledge. Borden, 141 S. Ct. at 1834 (“Offenses with a mens 

rea of recklessness do not qualify as violent felonies under ACCA . . .

[because] [t]hey do not require . . . the active employment of force against 

another person.”); see United States v. Greer, 20 F.4th 1071, 1076 (5th Cir. 

2021) (recognizing Borden as an intervening change in the law abrogating our 

Case: 20-11169 Document: 00516260451 Page: 8 Date Filed: 03/30/2022
No. 20-11169

9

inconsistent precedent). Jackson points out that one predicate for Texas 

aggravated robbery—robbery-by-injury, see Tex. Penal Code

§ 29.02(a)(1)—allows conviction based on mere recklessness. United States 

v. Garrett, 24 F.4th 485, 488–89 (5th Cir. 2022). It follows under the 

categorical approach, he contends, that no Texas aggravated robbery 

conviction is a volent felony.

Normally Jackson might have a point; courts usually look at the 

elements of the entire statute to determine if all iterations of the crime have 

the required force element. Borden, 141 S. Ct. at 1822. But when a statute is 

divisible into multiple crimes, the court may look to “a limited class of 

documents (for example, the indictment, jury instructions, or plea agreement 

and colloquy) to determine what crime, with what elements, a defendant was 

convicted of.” Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243, 2249 (2016). Those 

documents show that the predicate for Jackson’s aggravated robbery was 

robbery-by-threat, see Tex. Penal Code § 29.02(a)(2), which does 

require a mens rea higher than recklessness.4 Garrett, 24 F.4th at 491 (holding 

that “intentionally or knowingly threatening or placing another in fear of 

imminent bodily injury or death plainly constitutes the ‘threatened use of 

physical force’ under the ACCA”).

Jackson’s reliance on the insufficient mens rea of robbery-by-injury 

thus depends on his showing that the Texas simple robbery statute is 

indivisible and must be viewed as a whole. But we recently reaffirmed that 

the robbery statute is divisible and creates two distinct crimes. Garrett, 24 

4 Jackson’s judicial confession and the corresponding indictment show that his

predicate offense was robbery-by-threat. Both documents explain that Jackson “did . . . 

intentionally and knowingly threaten and place [the victim] in fear of imminent bodily 

injury and death.” These documents closely track the language of the robbery-by-threat 

statute and do not mention the bodily injury required for a robbery-by-injury conviction.

Case: 20-11169 Document: 00516260451 Page: 9 Date Filed: 03/30/2022
No. 20-11169

10

F.4th at 489–90. Because the modified categorical approach shows that 

Jackson was convicted of the qualifying predicate of robbery-by-threat, it 

does not matter that a different predicate is not considered a violent felony.

Garrett addressed only a simple robbery conviction. But as common 

sense suggests, the fact that Jackson committed an aggravated robbery does 

not transform his violent felony into a nonviolent one. United States v. Powell, 

No. 18-11050, 2022 WL 413943, at *2 n.3 (5th Cir. 2022) (unpublished) 

(“[R]obbery-by-threat, whether simple or aggravated, is a violent felony 

under the ACCA.”). Aggravated robbery requires a simple robbery predicate 

plus an aggravating circumstance such as serious bodily injury, the use or 

exhibition of a deadly weapon, or a vulnerable victim. Tex. Penal Code

§ 29.03(a). When the underlying robbery—here robbery-by-threat—has as 

an element “the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force 

against the person of another,” the aggravating circumstance is irrelevant for 

ACCA purposes. To establish the underlying simple robbery, the state had 

to prove a crime that falls within the ACCA’s elements clause.

Jackson’s aggravated robbery conviction is also a violent felony.

***

We AFFIRM.

Case: 20-11169 Document: 00516260451 Page: 10 Date Filed: 03/30/2022