Lofton v. United States, No. 17-2847 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseThe Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of petitioner's 28 U.S.C. 2255 petition based on Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). The court held that petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the residual clause led the sentencing court to apply a sentencing enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) based on a prior aggravated criminal sexual abuse conviction, and the classification was not harmless because a conviction thereunder did not constitute a violent felony under current law. The court also held that the district court erred in determining that petitioner's drug conviction qualified as a serious drug offense. Therefore, the court held that petitioner no longer had three prior felony convictions that qualified as predicate offenses. Because petitioner has already served the maximum time authorized by statute, the district court shall direct that he be released from custody immediately.
Court Description: Wollman, Author, with Arnold and Benton, Circuit Judges] Prisoner Case - Habeas. In challenge to status as an armed career criminal, petitioner bears the burden to show which ACCA clause district court used. Lofton demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence that the residual clause was used to apply the ACCA enhancement based on a prior aggravated criminal sexual abuse conviction and the classification is not harmless, as this conviction did not meet the force clause requirement. As for the drug conviction, the district court erred in determining it qualified as a serious drug offense. Thus he is entitled to section 2255 relief. The government's procedural default argument failes because the illegal sentence presents a miscarriage of justice. Because Lofton has served the maximum time authorized by statute, the district court shall direct that he be release immediately.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.