Wright v. United States

Background

Michael Wright filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 asking the court to vacate his conviction for possessing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). He relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Davis, which held that § 924(c)’s residual clause—the provision defining a crime of violence by asking whether an offense naturally presents a substantial risk of force—was unconstitutionally vague.

Wright had pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery and to possessing a brandished firearm in connection with the Hobbs Act robbery charged in Count Two. He received one day of imprisonment on the conspiracy count and a consecutive 84-month sentence on the firearm count, followed by five years of supervised release.

The indictment identified the completed Hobbs Act robbery as the predicate offense for the firearm count. The plea agreement and the judgment’s description of the nature of the offense instead referred to Hobbs Act robbery conspiracy. The parties agreed that these documents contained the inconsistency but disagreed about which description controlled.

Section 924(c) Conviction

The court concluded that Count Three was based on the completed Hobbs Act robbery charged in the indictment. It declined to interpret the judgment as changing the charge returned by the grand jury because doing so would create an impermissible constructive amendment of the indictment. The court therefore treated the conviction as one based on substantive Hobbs Act robbery.

The court stated that, after Davis, Hobbs Act robbery conspiracy is not a valid predicate for a § 924(c) conviction, but substantive Hobbs Act robbery remains a valid predicate under the statute’s force clause. Because Wright’s conviction was based on substantive robbery, the court held that Davis did not disturb the conviction.

The court also noted that the Government had given Wright a plea agreement that incorrectly described the predicate offense and had represented to Wright and the court that the firearm conviction related to conspiracy. The court criticized those oversights but did not find that they required vacating the conviction.

Challenge to the Guilty Plea

Wright alternatively argued that the inaccurate plea agreement made his guilty plea involuntary and unintelligent. Because he had not appealed the judgment, the court explained that he could raise this type of challenge only by showing a legally sufficient reason for not raising it earlier and actual harm, or by showing actual innocence.

The court did not decide whether Wright had shown a sufficient reason for the delay. It held that he had not shown the required harm. Specifically, Wright did not show that he would have refused to plead guilty to Count Three if the plea agreement had accurately described the predicate offense. The court therefore rejected the challenge to the validity of the guilty plea.

Disposition

Judge Wood denied the petition. The court also ruled that no certificate of appealability would issue because Wright had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. The clerk was directed to terminate the petition, close civil case number 16-CV-4408, and treat any pending motions as moot.