Source: http://tn.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20170823_0001009.ETN.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-09-25 15:20:56
Document Index: 798924066

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 924', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 922', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255']

PHILLIP ROSS GILLIAM, Petitioner,
Before the Court are a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and a supplemental § 2255 motion filed by Phillip Ross Gilliam (“Petitioner”) which challenge his enhanced sentence as an armed career criminal under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), pursuant to Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015).[1] In light of both Johnson and the recent en banc decision of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Stitt, 860 F.3d 854 (6th Cir. 2017), it now is undisputed that Petitioner no longer qualifies as an armed career criminal under the ACCA. Accordingly, Petitioner's § 2255 motion [Doc. 28] and supplemental § 2255 motion [Doc. 35] will be GRANTED.
On November 22, 2011, a grand jury in the Eastern District of Tennessee returned a one-count indictment charging Petitioner with possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) [Doc. 1]. On April 4, 2012, Petitioner entered a plea of guilty as to Count One [Doc. 16].
The presentence investigation report (“PSIR”) identified five previous convictions for a violent felony that qualified Petitioner as an armed career criminal under the ACCA. All five of these convictions were for aggravated burglary under Tennessee law [PSIR ¶¶ 21, 23, 24 (three counts)].[2] As an armed career criminal, Petitioner was subject to a statutory mandatory minimum incarceration sentence of 15 years to a maximum of life, and his advisory guideline sentencing range under the United States Sentencing Guidelines (“USSG”) was 180 to 210 months [PSIR ¶¶ 57, 58]. On July 19, 2012, Petitioner was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 180 months on count one of the indictment and a term of supervised release of three years [Doc. 27 pp. 2-3]. Petitioner did not file a direct appeal.
On June 20, 2014, Petitioner, through court-appointed counsel, filed a § 2255 motion challenging his armed career criminal status based on the Supreme Court's decision in Descamps v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2276 (2013) [Doc. 28]. On June 1, 2016, Petitioner, again through court-appointed counsel, filed a supplemental § 2255 motion raising an additional challenge to his armed career criminal status based on the Supreme Court's invalidation of the ACCA residual clause in Johnson [Doc. 35].
The government's motion to defer ruling on Petitioner's motions pending an en banc decision from the Sixth Circuit in United States v. Stitt, 646 F. App'x 454 (6th Cir. 2016), was granted by the Court on March 7, 2017 [Doc. 37]. On June 27, 2017, the Sixth Circuit issued its en banc decision holding that a conviction of aggravated burglary under Tennessee law does not qualify as a violent felony predicate offense under the ACCA. Stitt, 860 F.3d at 856. On July 27, 2017, the parties filed a joint status report agreeing that Petitioner no longer qualifies as an armed career criminal in light of Johnson and Stitt [Doc. 38].
Section 2255(f) places a one-year period of limitation on all petitions for collateral relief under § 2255, which runs from the latest of: (1) the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final; (2) the date on which the impediment to making a motion created by governmental action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the movant was prevented from making a motion by such governmental action; (3) the date on which the right asserted 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; or (4) the date on which the facts supporting the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f).
In this case, Petitioner filed a supplemental § 2255 motion raising a Johnson claim on June 1, 2016, which falls safely within the one-year window for requesting collateral relief under Johnson.