Mathews v. United States

Background

Leonard Mathews filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure that allows a person convicted of a federal crime to ask the sentencing court to vacate, set aside, or correct the conviction or sentence. Mathews proceeded without a lawyer. A jury had acquitted him on two counts but convicted him on four others, including Count Three, charging assault with a dangerous weapon in aid of racketeering, and Count Four, charging use or possession of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence.

The court sentenced Mathews to 204 months in prison: 84 months on Counts Three, Five, and Six, running at the same time, and 120 months on Count Four, running consecutively. The Second Circuit affirmed the conviction and sentence in January 2021. Mathews then filed this petition in March 2022.

Mathews’s Argument

Mathews argued that the assault conviction in Count Three could not serve as the predicate, or underlying offense, for his Count Four firearm conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Section 924(c) imposes mandatory minimum punishments for using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to a “crime of violence.” After the Supreme Court held the statute’s residual clause unconstitutionally vague, a predicate offense must satisfy the statute’s elements clause, which requires an element involving the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force.

Mathews relied on Borden v. United States, in which the Supreme Court held that an offense requiring only reckless conduct does not satisfy the comparable elements clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act. Mathews argued that New York’s second-degree assault statute includes alternative provisions requiring only recklessness, so his assault conviction could not support the firearm conviction.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied the modified categorical approach. For a statute that lists alternative elements defining different offenses, this approach permits the court to consult limited documents—such as the indictment, jury instructions, and verdict form—to identify the specific offense underlying the conviction and then determine whether that offense qualifies.

The court first determined that the relevant type of racketeering-related assault was assault with a dangerous weapon. The indictment, jury instructions, and verdict form all identified that variant. The court next determined that the conviction was based on New York Penal Law § 120.05(2), which requires that the defendant intend to cause physical injury and cause that injury by means of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument. The court found that the relevant documents showed intentional or knowing conduct, rather than conduct involving only recklessness.

The court then relied on Second Circuit precedent holding that racketeering-related assault based on New York Penal Law § 120.05(2) qualifies as a crime of violence under § 924(c)’s elements clause. The existence of other provisions in the New York statute that cover reckless conduct did not change the analysis because the modified categorical approach focused on the specific provision reflected in Mathews’s conviction. The court also rejected Mathews’s argument that courts could not apply this approach at both the racketeering-assault level and the underlying New York assault level, noting that the Second Circuit had used that method in a similar case.

Ruling and Disposition

The court held that the Count Three assault conviction qualified as a crime of violence supporting the Count Four firearm conviction. It therefore denied Mathews’s petition to vacate his Count Four conviction. The court also ruled that no certificate of appealability would issue because Mathews had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. The court directed the clerk to docket the order in both the criminal and civil case records and close the petition and the related civil case.