924(c) Conviction Related Only to Kidnapping Vacated

US v. Graham: In 2005, Graham and three others, in pursuit of “the expensive tire rims on a nearby parked car . . . pulled a gun, ordered the owner into the car, drove across state lines,” then beat and threatened to kill the owner unless he helped them get the rims off the car. They let him go and he ran “into the woods.” Graham was charged with multiple counts, including carjacking and kidnapping, but eventually pleaded guilty to kidnapping and a 924(c) charge for possession of a firearm in connection with a crime of violence. Neither the indictment nor any of the plea agreement paperwork identified what the crime of violence was. During the plea hearing, however, there were multiple references to kidnapping with only a passing reference to carjacking in relation to Graham’s promise to cooperate with authorities. Graham was sentenced to 260 months in prison. “Just over a decade later,” Graham filed a 2255 motion arguing that his 924(c) conviction was no longer valid because kidnapping was no longer a crime of violence. The district court denied the motion, concluding that the 924(c) conviction was “related to a carjacking, which the Fourth Circuit has held” was still a crime of violence.

On appeal, the Fourth Circuit reversed the denial of Graham’s 2255 motion. At issue was whether Graham’s 924(c) conviction was “expressly based” on both an invalid predicate (kidnapping) and valid one (carjacking), in which case his conviction had to be sustained. Noting that the lack of information about the predicate offense in the plea agreement and indictment, the court looked to the plea transcript, which “makes clear – over and over – that Graham’s guilty plea on the Section 924(c) offense was ‘expressly based’ on one and only one predicate: kidnapping.” Among other things, the court observed that “the prosecutor specifically disclaimed any relevance of whether the car had been manufactured out of state,” a required element of a carjacking offense, stating “this is a kidnapping, so it doesn’t matter.” The court also rejected the Government’s argument that Graham had admitted to facts that would support a carjacking conviction, noting that he admitted nothing about the interstate nexus requirement or carjacking’s heightened intent requirement.

Judge Wilkinson concurred in the judgment, but wrote at length about the problems of applying the categorical approach in evaluating 924(c) predicates.

Congrats to the Defender office in South Carolina on the win!