Seventh Circuit: Carl Leo Davis v. US

The Supreme Court's holding that the residual clause of ACCA was unconstitutionally vague announced a substantive change in the law that applies to petitioners seeking collateral review of sentences imposed under a parallel provision of the mandatory sentencing guidelines, despite the Supreme Court's subsequent holding that the provision in the guidelines was constitutional, as the gudelines, in the interval, had become merely advisory.

This substantive shift in the law was a sharp reversal from precedent, legitimately causing the petitioners not to raise the issue on direct appeal.

A second substantive change in the law that removed an alternate basis for the sentence of one of the petitioners did not trigger a mandatory limitation period for filing the writ, as it would merely have shifted the ultimate basis for the sentence.

A plea deal carve out excepting any constitutionally impermissible factor incorporates any unconstitutional input present at sentencing.

Prior offenses should be considered categorically when deciding whether the conviction is a valid predicate.

(Important decision.  Again, all this is quick work.  Don't rely.)



.
~ , , , , ,