UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. GERALD ADRIAN WHEELER
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Thacker, March 28, 2018,
Habeas Corpus – A prisoner may properly file a writ of habeas corpus if a retroactive change in the law, occurring after the time for direct appeal and the filing of his first habeas motion, meant that his mandatory minimum sentence was improperly increased and he now has no other way to correct the problem.
Circuit split alarm!
Facts:
In 1996, Wheeler was convicted of possession of cocaine in North Carolina.
In 2008, Wheeler was sentenced to 10 years in prison for PWID and prohibited possession of a firearm.
At sentencing, the judge determined that Wheeler’s 1996 conviction qualified as a “felony drug offense” and that the sentencing range was therefore 10 years to life.
The sentencing judge told Wheeler that “the sentence that is required to be imposed upon you is a harsh sentence. It’s a mandatory minimum sentence. I don’t have any discretion
in that area.” The judge sentenced Wheeler to 10 years.
Wheeler later filed a post-conviction (habeas), but it was denied.
After Wheeler was sentenced and his post-conviction was denied, the law changed and Wheeler no longer qualified for the mandatory minimum.
Wheeler then filed for a second post-conviction, arguing that the
Habeas Corpus – A prisoner cannot apply for a writ of habeas corpus if he “failed to apply for relief, by motion, to the court which sentenced him, or that such court has denied him relief,” unless “it also appears that the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” This second part is known as the “savings clause.”
Habeas Corpus – The “savings clause” is a jurisdictional issue that cannot be waived
Habeas Corpus – Modified “savings clause”- A prisoner challenging an illegal sentence via habeas petition may occur after appeal and first petition where:
– A change in controlling law of the circuit OR the Supreme Court has occurred
– The law must have been made retroactive on collateral review
– The petitioner must otherwise be unable to file a second or successive habeas motion
– The sentencing error must be “sufficiently grave” as to be a “fundamental defect”
Habeas Corpus – Modified “savings clause”- An improperly applied mandatory minimum will qualify as “sufficiently grave” to allow a subsequent habeas motion where the other criteria are met