Criminal Law

Dist. Ct. did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to amend his habeas petition challenging his sentence under Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) on ground that he had actually received certificate that would render one of his three prior convictions not countable for ACCA purposes, where amendment raised different claim that his prior escape and reckless endangerment convictions were not violent felonies for ACCA purposes. State responded to original habeas claim with evidence that defendant had produced “fake” certificate, and Dist. Ct. could properly conclude that proposed amendment was proffered in bad faith where: (1) defendant failed to reply to State’s claim that he had produced fake certificate; and (2) instant proposed amendment was attempt to supplant original claim to avoid dismissal on merits and to evade limitation on filing second or successive habeas petitions. Ct further noted that defendant’s claim in his amended habeas petition was untimely since it was proffered more than one year after any Supreme Court decision supporting his argument.

Dist. Ct. erred in finding that defendant’s prior Wisc. conviction on charge of possession of short-barreled shotgun qualified as “violent felony” under residual clause of Armed Career Criminal Act that required Dist. Ct. to impose at least mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years imprisonment on charge of felon in possession of firearm. Defendant’s mere possession of short-barreled shotgun was not similar to offenses enumerated in section 924(e)(2)(B)(ii) as guides to evaluate nature and degree of risk of injury since passive possession of such firearm poses no immediate risk of harm to anyone.

Defendant stated sufficient facts in his guilty plea colloquy to support his conviction on attempted robbery in violation of Hobbs Act arising out of defendant’s plan with others to rob truck that defendant believed contained money destined for drug transaction. Hobbs Act prohibits individuals for obstructing or delaying interstate commerce by robbery, and record showed that defendant had concocted plan to steal money from individuals after truck left Illinois and took several steps to implement plan by purchasing items to facilitate robbery and recruiting others to assist him in said robbery. Fact that govt. offered no proof that truck actually contained money or was actually slated for drug run to California was irrelevant where defendant held belief that truck periodically traveled from Illinois to California carrying money to purchase drugs.