United States v. Matthews

Citation: Not availableDocket: 09-2261

Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit; April 29, 2011; Federal Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Combined Opinion SummaryCombined Opinion Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Larry Matthews appeals a sentencing enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) following his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The district court imposed a mandatory minimum sentence of fifteen years, based on findings that Matthews had three qualifying prior convictions, including a juvenile adjudication for assault and battery, which the court determined involved a knife based on a police report. Matthews conceded the validity of two of the three predicate convictions but contested the juvenile adjudication's qualification under the ACCA, arguing that juvenile adjudications should not count and that facts regarding the adjudication should have been proven to a jury per Apprendi v. New Jersey. His appeal was rejected, and the original conviction and sentence were affirmed. Following a failed petition for rehearing and a subsequent attempt at certiorari, Matthews filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his sentence. The district court partially granted this motion, leading to a new sentencing hearing where the government reintroduced evidence of the juvenile adjudication using additional court documents instead of solely relying on the police report. The law of the case doctrine barred Matthews from challenging the ACCA enhancement at this stage.

The district court admitted exogenous documents and allowed explanatory testimony, using the juvenile adjudication and two other convictions to enhance the defendant's sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). The defendant appealed, raising a new claim regarding the government's proof of the juvenile adjudication only in a rehearing petition and certiorari petition, which were deemed untimely and insufficient to preserve the claim. The court referenced precedents establishing that new matters cannot be introduced in rehearing petitions or certiorari. The appeal centered on the law of the case doctrine, which maintains that legal decisions made in earlier stages of a case govern subsequent stages unless challenged. The defendant contended that this issue was not properly before the court due to its absence in the statement of issues on appeal, but the court rejected this, asserting that an appellee may defend a favorable judgment on any ground apparent from the record without filing a statement. The law of the case doctrine prevents parties from resurrecting issues that were or could have been addressed in earlier appeals, thus enhancing judicial efficiency and finality. It has two branches: the mandate rule, which bars relitigation of matters decided in earlier appeals, and a second branch that binds subsequent appellate panels to previous decisions unless modified by a higher court. The applicability of the doctrine is evaluated through de novo review.

At the time of the defendant's initial sentencing, the Supreme Court was reviewing Shepard v. United States, which questioned the method of proving prior convictions under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). Despite the clarity of the legal issue, the defendant did not object when the government presented a police report as evidence of his juvenile adjudication. The Supreme Court subsequently ruled in Shepard that using police reports for this purpose was prohibited. Prior to this ruling, various courts had indicated that using police reports might contravene constitutional principles established in Apprendi. Although a previous ruling by this court allowed such evidence, the defendant was still obligated to raise any claims to preserve them. The defendant was aware of the Shepard decision yet did not assert any error related to it or seek sentence reconsideration, and his later attempts to address these issues were deemed untimely. Consequently, the defendant's failure to act constituted a default of the Shepard error claim, and absent extraordinary circumstances, he could not revive it. The law of the case doctrine applies here, allowing for exceptions only in cases of significant legal changes, newly discovered evidence, or glaring errors that could lead to a miscarriage of justice.

In White v. Murtha, 377 F.2d 428 (5th Cir. 1967), referenced in Arizona, 460 U.S. at 618 n.8, the court determined that the defendant’s case does not qualify for an exception to established legal precedents. The defendant's claims were dismissed regarding the use of a knife in the offense, as there was no doubt about it, and no new evidence was presented. The focus shifted to whether there had been an intervening change in legal authority, specifically citing the Shepard decision. The court found that Shepard did not represent a significant legal change, as the relevant legal theories were already available prior to the defendant's sentencing, and Shepard was decided before his appeal was finalized.

The court emphasized that exceptions to the law of the case doctrine require caution in collateral reviews, as mistakes that might warrant reversal on direct appeal do not necessarily allow for collateral attacks on final judgments. The defendant's argument about juvenile adjudications not counting as predicates under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) was also found to be foreclosed by circuit precedent. The court concluded that the defendant had ample opportunity to raise his claims during original sentencing and direct review but failed to do so, thus should not raise them in a collateral context.

Despite the district court's error in considering the defaulted Shepard claim and vacating the original sentence, the imposition of an identical new sentence rendered the procedural issue moot. The court decided to treat the district court's errors as harmless and affirmed the new sentence, avoiding unnecessary further proceedings.