Introduction

The case of United States of America v. Donzell Ali McKinney, decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on February 16, 2023, represents a pivotal moment in the interpretation and application of the residual clause of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). This comprehensive commentary delves into the intricacies of McKinney's conviction, the subsequent legal challenges, and the broader implications of the court's decision.

Donzell Ali McKinney pled guilty in 2012 to two counts: conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery and a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) for discharging a firearm in relation to that conspiracy. However, changes in legal precedent led McKinney to file a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, seeking to vacate his § 924(c) conviction on the grounds that the underlying predicate offense no longer qualifies as a "crime of violence." The district court denied this motion, citing the plea agreement's waiver of appeal rights and procedural default. McKinney appealed, leading to the landmark decision analyzed herein.

Summary of the Judgment

The Fourth Circuit, presided over by Senior Circuit Judge Diana Gribbon Motz, reversed the district court's denial of McKinney's § 2255 motion, declaring his § 924(c) conviction invalid. The court held that the residual clause of § 924(c), which McKinney's conviction was predicated upon through Hobbs Act conspiracy, was unconstitutionally vague following the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Davis, 139 S.Ct. 2319 (2019). Consequently, McKinney's conviction for discharging a firearm during the conspiracy did not stand as it was based on conduct that no longer constituted a criminal offense.

The court further determined that the appeal waiver in McKinney's plea agreement did not bar his § 2255 motion. This was grounded in the principle that procedural defaults can be excused under specific circumstances, particularly when a defendant presents a cognizable claim of actual innocence or demonstrates that enforcing the waiver would result in a miscarriage of justice. The Fourth Circuit found that McKinney had satisfied these conditions, thereby warranting the vacatur of his § 924(c) conviction.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references several key precedents that influenced the court's decision:

• Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015): This Supreme Court decision struck down the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) as unconstitutionally vague, rendering it retroactively applicable on collateral review.
• Welch v. United States, 578 U.S. 120 (2016): Affirmed the retroactive application of Johnson, emphasizing that the residual clause's invalidity affects past convictions.
• DAVIS v. UNITED STATES, 139 S.Ct. 2319 (2019): Extended the unconstitutionality of residual clauses to 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), declaring it also unconstitutionally vague.
• United States v. Simms, 914 F.3d 229 (4th Cir. 2019) (en banc): Held that Hobbs Act conspiracy does not qualify as a "crime of violence" under § 924(c).
• In re Thomas, 988 F.3d 783 (4th Cir. 2021): Confirmed that Davis applies retroactively to cases on collateral review within the Fourth Circuit.
• BOUSLEY v. UNITED STATES, 523 U.S. 614 (1998): Established that to excuse procedural default, a defendant must show cause and actual prejudice or actual innocence.
• Adams v. United States, 814 F.3d 178 (4th Cir. 2016): Recognized the refusal to enforce an appeal waiver when a conviction is based on an invalid predicate offense.
• United States v. Sweeney, 833 Fed.Appx. 395 (4th Cir. 2021): Supported the rejection of an appeal waiver when the predicate offense is invalidated.

Legal Reasoning

The Fourth Circuit's legal reasoning was multifaceted, integrating principles from both statutory interpretation and constitutional safeguards:

• Invalidation of the Residual Clause: Following Johnson and Davis, the court affirmed that the residual clause of § 924(c) was unconstitutionally vague. This made any conviction predicated on such a clause invalid.
• Retrospective Application: The court held that Davis applied retroactively, thereby affecting McKinney's conviction even though it was based on a statute that was valid at the time of his plea.
• Appeal Waiver Overruled: The court dismissed the district court's reliance on McKinney's plea agreement waiving his right to appeal. It reasoned that exceptional circumstances, such as the invalidation of a predicate offense, justified overriding such waivers to prevent miscarriages of justice.
• Procedural Default Excused: McKinney demonstrated cause and actual prejudice, as his conviction was for conduct no longer deemed criminal. The court likened his situation to Adams, where an appeal waiver was not enforced due to the invalidity of the predicate offense.
• Rejection of the Dissent's Argument: The dissent argued for a fact-specific approach and contended that the majority's decision effectively created a per se rule of prejudice. The majority rebutted this by underscoring the clear-cut nature of the legal standard following Davis and Simms.

Impact

This judgment carries significant implications for the interpretation of federal statutes and the handling of plea agreements:

• Reshaping the Application of § 924(c): By declaring the residual clause unconstitutionally vague, the court effectively narrows the scope of § 924(c), potentially affecting numerous past and future convictions based on similar predicate offenses.
• Plea Agreement Waivers Under Scrutiny: The decision underscores that pleadings cannot be insulated from subsequent legal developments that render underlying statutes or their applications unconstitutional. This may lead prosecutors and defendants to reevaluate how waivers are drafted and invoked.
• Precedent for Collateral Review: The case sets a precedent within the Fourth Circuit for handling § 2255 motions where predicate offenses are invalidated post-conviction. It reinforces the supremacy of constitutional standards over procedural waivers in cases of legislative overreach.
• Encouraging Legal Challenges: Defendants convicted under similar circumstances may find renewed impetus to challenge their convictions, knowing that procedural defaults may be excused under certain conditions.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Residual Clause

A "residual clause" in a statute defines a category of crimes by referring to other provisions within the same statute. In the context of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), the residual clause was intended to penalize the use of firearms in "crimes of violence" not explicitly listed elsewhere in the statute.

Procedural Default

Procedural default occurs when a defendant fails to raise certain defenses or claims during their initial trial or appeal, thereby forfeiting the right to argue these points in subsequent post-conviction proceedings, such as habeas corpus petitions.

28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion

This statute allows federal prisoners to challenge the legality of their detention on multiple grounds, including ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, and new evidence that could exonerate them.

Miscarriage of Justice

A miscarriage of justice refers to a wrongful conviction or unjust penalty imposed on an individual, typically due to legal errors, misconduct, or constitutional violations.

Actual Prejudice

In the context of legal motions to overturn convictions, "actual prejudice" means that the legal error had a tangible and significant adverse effect on the outcome of the case, such as an incorrect conviction or unjust sentencing.

Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit's decision in United States v. Donzell Ali McKinney serves as a critical juncture in federal criminal law, particularly concerning the constitutionality of residual clauses in sentencing statutes like 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). By invalidating McKinney's conviction based on a now-unconstitutional predicate offense, the court underscores the paramount importance of statutory clarity and constitutional compliance.

This judgment not only affects individuals currently serving sentences under similar statutes but also prompts a broader reevaluation of how plea agreements and procedural waivers interact with evolving legal standards. The emphasis on preventing miscarriages of justice over procedural technicalities reinforces the courts' commitment to uphold constitutional protections, even in the face of previously agreed-upon legal consensuses.

As legal landscapes continue to shift, cases like McKinney's will likely serve as benchmarks for future legal arguments and judicial interpretations, ensuring that the balance between legislative intent and constitutional mandates remains firmly in place.