Defendant Overcomes Procedural Hurdles to Vacate 924(c) Conviction

US v. McKinney: McKinney and a codefendant robbed a restaurant using a firearm, which discharged (nobody got hurt). He was charged with Hobbs Act robbery, conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, and use of a firearm in connection with a crime of violence under 18 USC 924(c). Twice, McKinney refused to plead guilty to the robbery and a 924(c) count based on the robbery. Instead, he eventually pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit the robbery and a 924(c) where the identified crime of violence was the conspiracy to commit the robbery. He wound up sentenced to 70 months for the robbery, plus 120 months for the 924(c) charge.

In 2016, after the Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson, McKinney filed a 2255 motion arguing that his 924(c) conviction was no longer valid. The motion sat while the Supreme Court made further decisions that supported McKinnney’s claim, but the district court ultimately dismissed the motion at the Government’s request, concluding that he waived the right to do so in his plea agreement and had procedurally defaulted on the claim by not raising it earlier.

On appeal, a divided Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of McKinney’s 2255 claim. The court noted that it typically leaves the merits of the claim until last, but everyone in this case agreed that McKinney’s 924(c) conviction was now invalid. Therefore, the court turned to the issue of whether McKinney was barred from seeking relief on that ground. As to the waiver in McKinney’s plea agreement, the court concluded that to enforce it would work a miscarriage of justice because it would leave McKinney convicted of an offense that was no longer a crime. As to procedural default, the court found good cause for it because at the time of McKinney’s sentencing a challenge to his 924(c) conviction on these grounds would have not just been futile but contrary to existing Supreme Court precedent. In other words, it was only the change in Supreme Court precedent that made the argument available in the first place. The court also found prejudice, rooted in the record of McKinney refusing (twice) to plead guilty to charges related to robbery rather than conspiracy.

Judge Wilkinson dissented, arguing that the majority had created a “per se” rule of automatic prejudice which is “fundamentally at odds with the most basic principles of our criminal justice system.”

Congrats to the Defender office in Western North Carolina on the win!