Steele v. United States
- Victor Marrero
- 1:20-cv-01151
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Steele v. United States, Judge Victor Marrero denied Steele’s request to undo his sentence, ruling Borden did not affect his ACCA enhancement.
Joseph Steele, whose request for resentencing without the Armed Career Criminal Act enhancement was denied.
What happened
In Steele v. United States, Joseph Steele asked to change his pending motion challenging his sentence. He argued that a Supreme Court decision called Borden made his New York first-degree robbery conviction unusable for an Armed Career Criminal Act sentencing increase.
The court explained that Borden concerned crimes requiring recklessness. New York first-degree robbery requires intentional conduct instead, so the court found that Borden did not affect Steele’s sentence. The court therefore found that changing his motion would serve no purpose.
Judge Victor Marrero construed Steele’s later filing as a request to amend his earlier sentence challenge, denied that request as futile, and denied the request to vacate his sentence.
The detailed version
- Steele v. United States · No. 1:20-cv-01151
- Victor Marrero
- Sept. 16, 2022
Background
On October 28, 2016, Joseph Steele was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and (2). On February 5, 2020, he filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure allowing a federal prisoner to challenge a sentence. The court denied that motion on June 4, 2021.
Steele then filed another § 2255 motion without a lawyer on June 7, 2022. The court initially treated it as a second or successive motion and denied it on July 29, 2022. Steele appealed. On September 7, 2022, the Second Circuit sent the matter back because Steele’s appeal from the earlier decision was still pending. The court stated that, under Second Circuit precedent, the June 2022 filing should instead be treated as a motion to amend the earlier § 2255 motion.
Steele’s Argument
Steele argued that his prior conviction for first-degree robbery under New York Penal Law § 160.15(4) no longer qualified as a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). He relied on United States v. Borden and asked to be resentenced without the ACCA sentencing enhancement.
Court’s Reasoning
The court explained that Borden held that an offense requiring recklessness does not qualify as an ACCA violent felony. The court further explained that New York first-degree robbery does not require recklessness. Instead, the offense requires intentional or purposeful conduct under New York law. Because the mental state required for Steele’s robbery conviction was more demanding than recklessness, the court concluded that Borden had no effect on the ACCA enhancement in Steele’s case.
Because Borden did not support Steele’s requested relief, the court found that amending the § 2255 motion would be futile. In other words, even with the proposed amendment, Steele would not be entitled to have his sentence vacated on that ground.
Disposition
The court denied the motion to amend as futile. Its order also denied Steele’s request to vacate his sentence under § 2255.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.