Godfrey v. United States

Background

Tavon Godfrey pleaded guilty to one count under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), a federal law prohibiting using, carrying, or possessing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence. The charging document identified the underlying crime of violence as an assault with a deadly weapon committed to maintain or increase Godfrey’s position in the Square Gang, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(3). The charge alleged that the firearm was brandished and discharged.

Godfrey’s plea concerned a 2014 shooting in the Bronx. At two plea proceedings, he admitted possessing and firing a gun at rival gang members, but he did not admit that anyone was injured. The court also found no other factual support in the plea agreement or record for an injury connected to that shooting. The government had stated in a sentencing memorandum that Godfrey did not kill or injure anyone in the shootings described there, and it conceded that Godfrey had not allocuted to injuring anyone during the 2014 shooting.

Procedural Default and Actual Innocence

The government argued that Godfrey’s claim was procedurally defaulted because he had not appealed his conviction. The court held that Godfrey overcame that barrier by showing actual innocence. In this context, actual innocence meant factual innocence, not merely that the evidence was legally insufficient.

The court concluded that the relevant crime included the specific predicate offense charged in the plea documents, not just the general firearm statute. Because an assault under § 1959(a)(3) must satisfy the elements of a state-law assault, and New York assault law requires physical injury, the absence of evidence of injury meant that the 2014 shooting could not establish the charged assault. The court therefore found Godfrey actually innocent of the sole predicate crime and of the specific firearm offense to which he pleaded guilty.

The court also rejected the government’s argument that Godfrey had to prove innocence of other charges dismissed under the plea agreement. It held that the dismissed racketeering-conspiracy charge was less serious than the firearm charge, while the other dismissed firearm count was equally serious. Under the court’s reading of the governing law, Godfrey did not have to show actual innocence of either dismissed charge.

Merits of the § 2255 Motion

A motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 allows a federal prisoner to seek correction of a sentence imposed in violation of federal law. The court explained that, because Godfrey pleaded guilty, he had to show a reasonable probability that he would not have pleaded guilty absent the error. The court found that he met this standard.

The government argued that the firearm charge could instead have been based on attempted assault with a deadly weapon. The court found that attempted assault had not been charged or mentioned in the plea documents or plea proceedings. Godfrey had not admitted the specific intent required for that offense, and the record did not show that he would have pleaded guilty to it. The court also relied on Godfrey’s hesitation about pleading guilty: his attorney first reported that he wanted to withdraw the plea, then reported that he wanted to proceed, prompting the court to conduct an additional hearing before accepting it.

Disposition

The court granted Godfrey’s § 2255 motion. It vacated his § 924(c) conviction and directed the Bureau of Prisons to release him immediately. The order was stayed for ten days from entry of the opinion to allow the government to file a notice of appeal and seek an additional stay from the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.