Clearwater Criminal Lawyer Blog
Federal sentencing laws often impose steep penalties on individuals with prior convictions, especially in firearm cases. When a person is classified as an armed career criminal, the mandatory minimum sentence can be decades of imprisonment. While defendants may later seek relief through post-conviction motions, federal courts closely scrutinize such claims, particularly when based on new Supreme Court precedent. A recent Florida decision highlights the challenges defendants face when seeking to overturn long-standing convictions. If you are facing a firearm charge, it is vital to consult with a Clearwater criminal defense attorney to understand your options at each stage of the process.
Factual and Procedural History
It is reported that the defendant was charged with possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon. He pleaded guilty without a plea agreement. Because of three prior Florida drug convictions, he was sentenced as an armed career criminal under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). That designation triggered a mandatory minimum of 180 months, which the court imposed in September 2018.
Allegedly, the defendant did not appeal but later sought more time to file a § 2255 motion. The court denied that request, explaining the one-year deadline set by statute. He pursued other forms of relief, including motions for compassionate release and sentence reductions, but all were denied.
It is alleged that nearly five years later, in 2024, the defendant filed a motion to vacate under § 2255, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Erlinger v. United States (2024). In Erlinger, the Court held that whether prior convictions occurred on separate occasions for ACCA purposes must be determined by a unanimous jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant argued that his sentence was unconstitutional because no jury made such findings in his case.
Reportedly, the government moved to dismiss the defendant’s petition as untimely rather than address its merits. The court granted him extra time to respond, but he failed to file anything further. The court then proceeded to resolve the case on the record.
Retroactivity of Sentencing Law Changes
The district court explained that new rules apply retroactively on collateral review only if they are substantive. Substantive rules limit the reach of a criminal statute or exempt certain conduct from punishment. In contrast, procedural rules, such as those governing how facts are determined, do not apply retroactively. The court concluded that Erlinger, like Apprendi v. New Jersey, was procedural and therefore not retroactive.
The court also ruled the motion untimely. The defendant’s conviction became final in October 2018, so he had until October 2019 to file under § 2255(f)(1). Filing in 2024 made the motion nearly five years late. The court rejected equitable tolling and noted that alleged sentencing errors were not jurisdictional.
Meet with a Seasoned Clearwater Criminal Defense Attorney
If you are facing federal firearm charges or sentencing enhancements under the ACCA, the consequences can be life-altering, and you should talk to an attorney. The seasoned Clearwater gun crime defense attorneys at Hanlon Law can evaluate the charges and advise you on the best course of action. Contact Hanlon Law through our online form or call 727-897-5413 to schedule a confidential consultation.