Johnson v. United States

Background

Hobby Johnson pleaded guilty in 1996 to participating in a racketeering enterprise and to using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to murder in aid of racketeering. The firearm conviction was under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), which imposes a penalty for using, carrying, or possessing a firearm in connection with a “crime of violence.” He received consecutive prison terms of 240 months on the racketeering count and 60 months on the firearm count.

In 2016, Hobby Johnson filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a federal procedure allowing a prisoner to challenge an unlawful sentence. He initially relied on Johnson v. United States. After the Supreme Court held in United States v. Davis that § 924(c)’s “residual clause”—the part covering crimes involving a substantial risk that physical force may be used—was unconstitutionally vague, Hobby Johnson amended his petition to rely on Davis.

Issue and Arguments

Hobby Johnson argued that his § 924(c) conviction could not stand because murder in aid of racketeering was not a “crime of violence” under the remaining “elements clause.” That clause covers a felony that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against another person or property.

He also argued that the court should treat the federal offense as having one indivisible set of elements and should not examine the charging materials or plea colloquy. He contended that New York murder could be committed recklessly or by omission and therefore did not necessarily require the use of physical force. The court noted that the divisibility argument was raised for the first time in the reply, but addressed it because the Government’s position was clear.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied the categorical approach, which compares the minimum conduct necessary for conviction with the federal definition of a crime of violence. Because the New York murder statute lists alternative acts that define multiple crimes, the court treated it as divisible and used the plea colloquy to identify the offense underlying Hobby Johnson’s conviction.

The plea colloquy showed that the applicable offense was intentional murder under New York Penal Law § 125.25(1). Hobby Johnson stated that he and an associate shot Donald Moore to death after a gang leader asked Hobby Johnson to kill Moore. The court concluded that intentional murder under that provision requires intentionally causing another person’s death.

The court held that intentional murder necessarily involves the use of physical force and therefore qualifies as a crime of violence under § 924(c)’s elements clause. It rejected Hobby Johnson’s reliance on a Second Circuit decision concerning New York first-degree manslaughter, explaining that manslaughter and murder are different offenses. The court also noted that Hobby Johnson had not identified a case holding that murder under § 125.25(1) is not a crime of violence.

Disposition

The court denied Hobby Johnson’s § 2255 petition to vacate his § 924(c) conviction. It also ruled that a certificate of appealability would not issue because Hobby Johnson had not made the required showing that reasonable judges could debate the court’s decision. The clerk was directed to close the related civil case, 16 Civ. 5113.