Criminal Law : Sentencing – Violent Felony – Missouri Burglary Conviction

Listen to this article

Where a defendant challenged the enhancement of his sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act, the defendant’s Missouri second-degree burglary convictions do not qualify as violent felonies under the act, so the sentence is vacated and remanded for resentencing, and U.S. v. Sykes is overruled to the extent it holds otherwise.

More conduct

Concurring opinion by Colloton, J.: “The decisions of the Missouri courts concerning the second-degree burglary statute at issue here establish that unlawful entry into a ‘building’ and unlawful entry into an ‘inhabitable structure’ are best viewed as alternative means of committing a single offense of burglary. If the Supreme Court of Missouri declares otherwise in the future, then the question can be revisited. As the law stands, ‘[b]ecause the Missouri second-degree burglary statute covers more conduct than does generic burglary, . . . convictions for second-degree burglary under Mo. Rev. Stat § 569.170 (1979), do not qualify as violent felonies under the ACCA.’ Ante, at 15 (opinion of Kelly, J.). I therefore concur in the judgment vacating Naylor’s sentence and remanding the case for resentencing.”

Mathis

Dissenting opinion by Loken, J.: “I join in Judge Shepherd’s dissent because it applies Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016), in a plausible and in my view the only permissible manner.”

Modified categorical approach

Dissenting opinion by Shepherd, J.: “As is abundantly demonstrated by the splintered opinions filed today, the only clear truth presently before the court is that Missouri law is patently unclear on whether the statutory terms are means or elements. This case is therefore far removed from the ‘straightforward’ application of Iowa law presented to the Supreme Court in Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243, 2257 (2016). Instead, we have no case directly on point, and we are left to combing Missouri precedent in an attempt to guess how courts in that state treat disjunctively phrased statutes….

“I would reinstate the panel opinion in this case because it properly applied the modified categorical approach to determine that Naylor’s previous convictions under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 569.170 were violent felonies as defined in the ACCA.”

Vacated; remanded.

U.S. v. Naylor (MLW No. 71533/Case No. 16-2047 – 26 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8^th Circuit, Kelly, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri. (Daniel Goldberg, Kansas City, Missouri, for appellant) (Alison D. Dunning, Kansas City, Missouri, for appellee).

Read the full text of this opinion. (PDF)