Godwin v. United States of America (INMATE 3), No. 2:2016cv00509 - Document 40 (M.D. Ala. 2019)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: Accordingly, it is ORDERED that, by August 9, 2019, the parties are to file detailed legal briefs concerning whether petitioner Jerald Dean Godwin's satisfies his burden under Beeman of proving that his 924(c) conviction rested solely on the residual clause. The parties may submit additional evidence from the record of conviction in support of their briefs. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 7/30/2019. (kh, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Godwin v. United States of America (INMATE 3) Doc. 40 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION JERALD DEAN GODWIN, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16cv509-MHT (WO) OPINION AND ORDER Petitioner Jerald Dean Godwin, a federal inmate, filed this lawsuit seeking habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He challenges his conviction and consecutive 84-month sentence for brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a “crime of violence,” in violation of 18 U.S.C § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). The specific basis of his § 2255 motion is that § 924(c)’s residual clause is unconstitutionally vague in light of Johnson v. United States, the 2015 Supreme Court decision that struck down on vagueness grounds the similarly worded residual (ACCA). clause of the Armed Career Criminal 135 S. Ct. 2551, 2555-58, 2563 (2015). Act Three Dockets.Justia.com years after Godwin filed his § 2255 motion, the Supreme Court proved him right: in United States v. Davis, the Court extended its ruling in Johnson and held that § 924(c)’s residual clause, like the ACCA’s residual clause, is unconstitutionally vague. 139 S. Ct. 2319, 2336 (2019). Although Godwin originally filed his motion based on Johnson, his petition is “best described as a Davis claim.” In re Hammoud, 2019 WL 3296800, at *2 n.1 (11th Cir. July 23, 2019). claim, he bears the To succeed on his Davis burden of showing “that his § 924(c) conviction resulted from application of solely the residual clause,” and not also the elements clause. Id. at 5 (citing Beeman v. United States, 871 F.3d 1215, 1222-25 (11th Cir 2017) (holding that § 2255 movants raising Johnson claims “must show that--more likely than not--it was use of the residual clause that led to the sentencing court’s enhancement of [their] sentence.”). In proving this, Godwin “may rely on the 2 relevant record relevant time.” and/or Weeks on v. legal United precedent at the States, 2019 WL 3280186, at *8 (11th Cir. July 22, 2019). To complete its review of the magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny Godwin’s § 2255 motion, this court requires briefing from both sides on whether he meets his burden of showing his § 924(c) conviction rested solely on the residual clause. *** Accordingly, it is ORDERED that, by August 9, 2019, the parties concerning are to whether file detailed petitioner Jerald legal Dean briefs Godwin’s satisfies his burden under Beeman of proving that his § 924(c) conviction clause. The parties may submit additional evidence from record the of rested solely conviction in on the support residual of their briefs. DONE, this the 30th day of July, 2019. /s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
]]>
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.
