UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. GARNETT ALISON HODGE
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Gregory, August 22, 2018,
ACCA – The Government must identify all convictions it wishes to use to support a defendant’s Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) sentence enhancement at the time of sentencing. It cannot later “swap” predicates when one is found to be improper.
Facts:
In 2010, Garnett Hodge was indicted in federal court for drug and firearm offenses.
He pled guilty and was sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). The sentencing court found that Hodge had three qualifying ACCA convictions: A 1992 CDS PWID conviction in Maryland, a 1998 CDS PWID conviction in Maryland, and a 1998 conviction for reckless endangerment in Maryland. Hodge had numerous other convictions, but none were considered by the sentencing court.
Because Garnett had three ACCA-qualifying convictions, he was sentenced to a mandatory minimum of 15 years for his firearm conviction. In sum, Garnett was sentenced to 204 months in prison.
The Supreme Court later limited the ACCA’s “residual clause”, making Maryland’s reckless endangerment crime no longer qualify as an ACCA predicate.
Garnett then challenged his sentence, arguing that he was improperly sentenced because he didn’t have three ACCA-predicate convictions.
The Government then argued that Garnett had another conviction that could have qualified as an ACCA predicate, and therefore the sentence was proper.
Held: The Fourth Circuit held that, because the Government didn’t seek to have the other conviction qualified as an ACCA predicate at the time of sentencing, it lost its chance to bring it up later.
ACCA – The Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), among other things, criminalizing and providing enhanced penalties for use or possession of a firearm during a crime of violence.
ACCA – The ACCA defines “crime of violence” as a felony that either:
– (force clause) “has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another”
OR
– (residual clause) “by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense”
ACCA – The Supreme Court held that the “residual clause” was unconstitutionally vague.