Morgan v. United States

Background

Travis Morgan filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure allowing a federal prisoner to challenge a sentence or conviction. He sought to vacate his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) for brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence and to receive a new sentencing proceeding on the remaining count.

The indictment charged Morgan with conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robberies and attempted robberies, three substantive Hobbs Act robbery or attempted-robbery counts, and two firearm counts. Morgan pleaded guilty to Count One, the robbery-conspiracy count, and Count Three, the firearm count. The plea agreement stated that Count Three was based on the Hobbs Act robbery charged in Count Two. Morgan did not plead guilty to Count Two, and the Government later dismissed that substantive robbery charge at sentencing.

At the plea hearing, the court told Morgan that Count Three involved brandishing a firearm during and in relation to the substantive robbery charged in Count Two. The prosecutor instead described Count Three as involving the robbery conspiracy charged in Count One. Morgan then stated that he participated in a robbery, that a firearm was brandished by a co-conspirator during the robbery, and that he knew what he was doing was wrong. The court found that his plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by facts.

Morgan was sentenced to 132 months’ imprisonment: 48 months on Count One and a mandatory consecutive 84 months on Count Three. His petition argued that he had not pleaded to the substantive robbery and that a Hobbs Act robbery conspiracy could not serve as the required predicate for the firearm conviction.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that Morgan pleaded guilty to brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a substantive Hobbs Act robbery, not to brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a robbery conspiracy. The indictment and plea agreement identified the substantive robbery as the predicate for Count Three, and Morgan’s own sentencing submission recognized that description. The court also found that his plea statements supplied a factual basis for the underlying robbery.

The court relied on United States v. Hill, which it said controlled because a substantive Hobbs Act robbery is a valid predicate for a conviction under § 924(c). It explained that the predicate offense need not be separately charged and result in a separate conviction if there is legally sufficient proof that the predicate crime was committed. Morgan’s own plea statements supplied that proof.

The court acknowledged that the prosecutor had mistakenly described the firearm offense during the plea hearing. It nevertheless concluded that the plea agreement, indictment, court’s explanation, and Morgan’s statements made the basis for Count Three clear. The court therefore rejected Morgan’s argument that the plea was ambiguous or rested on the robbery conspiracy.

Ruling

The court denied Morgan’s § 2255 petition. It held that the Count Three firearm conviction was valid and stated that resentencing on the remaining count, as Morgan requested, would not change the result. The clerk was directed to terminate the motions listed at Docket 33, Docket 39, and Docket 40 in the criminal case.