Capriata v. United States
- Sidney Stein
- 1:16-cv-04649
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Capriata v. United States, Judge Stein vacated Jose Capriata’s firearm conviction because conspiracy to commit murder-for-hire was not a qualifying crime-of-violence predicate.
Jose Capriata’s federal firearm conviction was vacated, and the court scheduled resentencing. The opinion also set a deadline for submissions by the parties.
What happened
In Capriata v. United States, Jose Capriata challenged his conviction for using or discharging a firearm during a crime of violence. He relied on a Supreme Court decision holding that part of the firearm statute was unconstitutionally vague, and the government did not oppose his request.
The court examined the only predicate offense supporting the firearm conviction: conspiracy to commit murder-for-hire. It concluded that conspiracy requires an agreement and an act advancing the agreement, neither of which necessarily involves actual, attempted, or threatened physical force.
Judge Stein granted Capriata’s petition and vacated the firearm conviction. The court stated that the parties could make submissions by April 5 and scheduled resentencing for April 19 at 4:00 p.m., remotely.
The detailed version
- Capriata v. United States · No. 1:16-cv-04649
- Sidney Stein
- Mar. 29, 2021
Background
Jose Capriata moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure that allows a federal prisoner to challenge a conviction or sentence, to vacate his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). That statute provides enhanced punishment for using, carrying, or possessing a firearm during or in furtherance of a crime of violence or drug-trafficking offense. Capriata pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit murder-for-hire and to discharging a firearm in connection with that conspiracy. The court sentenced him to 60 months for the conspiracy and an additional 120 months for the firearm offense.
Capriata initially filed a challenge based on Johnson v. United States and Welch v. United States. While that challenge was stayed, the Supreme Court decided United States v. Davis, holding that § 924(c)(3)(B), the statute’s “residual clause,” was unconstitutionally vague. The residual clause defined a crime of violence by asking whether the offense, by its nature, involved a substantial risk that physical force might be used. The remaining “elements clause” applies only when the offense has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against a person or property.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that Capriata’s plea admissions connected his firearm offense only to conspiracy to commit murder-for-hire. The government did not argue that another predicate offense supported the conviction. The court therefore considered whether that conspiracy offense qualified under the elements clause.
Applying the categorical approach, which examines the minimum conduct needed for a conviction rather than the specific facts of the defendant’s conduct, the court held that conspiracy to commit murder-for-hire is not a crime of violence under § 924(c)(3)(A). Under 18 U.S.C. § 371, the minimum conduct consists of an agreement to commit an offense and an overt act advancing that agreement. The agreement and overt act do not necessarily involve the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force. Because the conspiracy could not serve as a valid predicate after Davis, the § 924(c) conviction could not stand.
Ruling
Judge Sidney H. Stein granted Capriata’s § 2255 petition and vacated his § 924(c) conviction. The opinion states that the parties could make submissions on or before April 5 and that resentencing would be held remotely on April 19 at 4:00 p.m.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.