Johnson v. United States
Between 1983 and 1994, Johnson pled guilty to several state criminal charges. In 1994, he was indicted on federal drug conspiracy charges and pled guilty. After initially objecting to being classed as a career offender, Johnson waived his objection at his sentencing hearing and was sentenced to 188 months imprisonment. Johnson appealed, contending his prior state convictions were obtained in violation of his constitutional right to counsel, and thus he should not have been sentenced as a career offender. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the sentence in an unpublished order, which included the comment in a footnote that Johnson could petition for federal habeas relief if, at some future date, the state court convictions were vacated because they were obtained in violation of his constitutional rights.
Just over one year later, Johnson filed a motion in federal district court to extend the time to file a habeas petition. The district court ruled that the motion was untimely and dismissed it without prejudice. Subsequently, Johnson filed a state habeas petition challenging all of his prior state convictions on the ground that he had not validly waived his right to counsel in those proceedings. The state court vacated Johnson's prior convictions and Johnson filed another federal habeas petition seeking to vacate his federal sentence because he no longer qualified as a career offender. The district court denied the petition as untimely because it was filed later than one year after his conviction was finalized. Johnson contended that the vacatur of his prior state convictions was a “fact” that could not have been discovered until the state court ruled on his petition, and that the discovery of this “fact” extended the time limitation to one year from the date his prior state convictions were set aside. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, concluding the vacatur of Johnson's prior state convictions was not a “fact” from which the one-year statute of limitations may run.
Question Presented:
When a federal court bases an enhanced sentence on a vacated state conviction, is the vacatur of the state conviction a "fact" supporting a prisoner's 28
U.S.C. ยง 2255 claim requiring reduction of the prisoner's sentence?
