Sanchez v. United States

Background

Christian Sanchez filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure allowing a federal prisoner to challenge a conviction or sentence. He challenged four of five firearm-related convictions under 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c) and 924(j): Count 30, based on a racketeering conspiracy; Count 37, based on offenses connected to the murder of Jerome Scarlett; Count 39, based on offenses connected to the murder of John Maldonado; and Count 40, based on assault with a dangerous weapon connected to the shooting of “Mike Mike.” Sanchez did not challenge Count 29, which was based on a drug-trafficking crime.

The challenge followed the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Davis. That decision held that the “residual clause” in § 924(c)(3)(B), which defined a violent crime by reference to a substantial risk that physical force might be used, was unconstitutionally vague. The remaining part of the definition, the “elements clause,” requires an offense to have as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force.

Procedural default

The court held that Sanchez’s challenges to Counts 37, 39, and 40 were procedurally defaulted because he did not raise them on direct appeal. A procedural default generally prevents later review unless the petitioner shows a legally sufficient reason for the omission and actual prejudice, or proves factual innocence. The court rejected Sanchez’s argument that the constitutional challenge was unavailable when his appeal was pending. It concluded that an earlier Supreme Court decision, Johnson II, provided the tools for making the argument and that the claim was available before Sanchez’s appeal ended.

The court also stated that there was no prejudice because the convictions were supported by valid, non-conspiracy predicates. Although the court found procedural default, it nevertheless addressed the merits “in an excess of caution.”

Merits of the conviction challenges

The United States conceded that the conspiracy predicates underlying Counts 30, 37, 39, and 40 could not support the convictions after Davis. It argued, however, that Counts 37, 39, and 40 remained valid because each also involved a substantive violent crime. The court agreed.

The court reasoned that a conviction based on multiple predicates can survive when at least one predicate clearly qualifies as a violent crime. The jury had convicted Sanchez of the substantive murder of Scarlett, the substantive murder of Maldonado, and assault with a dangerous weapon. The jury also found firearm use in connection with those offenses. Because the evidence showed that each shooting involved a firearm and that the victims were struck by bullets, the court concluded that the jury necessarily relied on the substantive offenses, not only on the conspiracies.

Applying the categorical approach, the court examined the elements of the relevant New York offenses rather than the particular facts of Sanchez’s conduct. It held that intentional murder, attempted murder, and the charged intentional forms of assault with a dangerous weapon required the use of violent physical force. The court rejected Sanchez’s arguments that the offenses could theoretically be committed through poison, omission, or recklessness. It explained that the relevant assault alternatives submitted to the jury required intent, and that intentional causation of death or bodily injury involves the use of physical force.

The court therefore held that Counts 37, 39, and 40 remained valid under the elements clause. It held that Count 30, which rested solely on a conspiracy predicate, had to be vacated through the grant of the petition as to that count.

Motion to amend

Sanchez also sought to amend his petition to argue that intentional murder under New York law was not a proper predicate under federal racketeering statutes because it was broader than federal murder. The court ruled that this proposed claim was untimely and did not relate back to the original petition. The original petition challenged the residual clause under Davis, while the proposed amendment raised a different legal theory concerning the relationship between New York and federal murder definitions. The court stated that the proposed claim was supported by different facts and did not arise from the same core of operative facts. The court further stated that, even if timely, the claim would be procedurally barred and would fail on the merits.

Disposition

The court granted the petition as to Count 30 and otherwise denied it. It stated that the conviction and sentence on Count 30 appeared to require simple vacatur, but it did not resolve Sanchez’s request for a full resentencing under the First Step Act. Because the government had not addressed that request, the court ordered the government to state its position by April 22, 2021, and allowed Sanchez to reply by May 6, 2021. The court also stated that a certificate of appealability would not issue and directed the clerk to close the civil case.