Feliz v. United States

Background

In 2013, Jonathan Feliz received an aggregate 30-year prison sentence for two firearm offenses. Count One carried a mandatory consecutive five-year sentence for using and carrying a firearm in relation to a drug-trafficking offense. Count Two carried a mandatory consecutive 25-year sentence for using, carrying, and discharging a firearm during a crime of violence.

Feliz sought relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which allows a federal prisoner to challenge a sentence on specified constitutional, jurisdictional, or fundamental legal grounds. He asked the court to vacate Count Two and its 25-year sentence. He did not challenge Count One.

Feliz’s Argument and the Government’s Position

Feliz relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Davis, which held that the residual clause of the definition of a “crime of violence” in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) was unconstitutionally vague. After Davis, a predicate offense must satisfy the statute’s elements clause, meaning that it must have as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against another person or property.

Feliz argued that the predicate for Count Two was conspiracy to commit murder and that conspiracy did not satisfy the elements clause. The United States agreed that conspiracy to commit murder could no longer serve as the predicate but argued that Count Two was also supported by attempted murder. The government maintained that attempted murder remains a valid crime-of-violence predicate.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that a § 924(c) conviction does not require the defendant to have been convicted of, or even charged with, the predicate offense if the record contains legally sufficient proof that the offense was committed. The court therefore considered whether the record established attempted murder, even though conspiracy to commit murder could no longer support the conviction.

The court relied on the charging documents, plea agreement, plea hearing, and presentence report. During the plea hearing, Feliz admitted that he carried and discharged a handgun in connection with a plan to kill Skeilin Camacho. The court also noted that Feliz admitted participating in an attempt to kill another rival drug dealer, Jimmy Lopez. The court concluded that the record showed legally sufficient proof of multiple attempted murders. It rejected Feliz’s argument that the word “plan” established only a conspiracy, explaining that a person can plan and carry out a crime without the plan itself being a conspiracy.

The court separately addressed whether attempted murder satisfies the elements clause. It relied on Second Circuit decisions holding that attempted murder involves an attempted use of physical force. The court declined to extend the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Taylor—which concerned attempted Hobbs Act robbery—to attempted murder. The court reasoned that murder necessarily involves the use of force, so an attempt to commit murder necessarily involves an attempted use of force.

Disposition

The court held that the invalidity of conspiracy to commit murder as a predicate did not require vacating Count Two because the record supplied sufficient proof of attempted murder, which remained a valid crime-of-violence predicate. The court denied Feliz’s motion to vacate under § 2255 and dismissed his petition. It directed the clerk to close Case No. 16-cv-4449.