Opinion
16-40086-01-DDC
01-11-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL D. SHADOAN (01), Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Daniel D. Crabtree, United States District Judge.
Defendant Michael D. Shadoan has filed a Motion to Vacate (Doc. 69) under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. It asserts, among other arguments, that he is actually innocent of the crime he pleaded guilty to committing-felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). See Docs. 26-28. This argument rides the coattails of the Circuit's recent decision in United States v. Hisey, 12 F.4th 1231 (10th Cir. 2021). The court agrees with Mr. Shadoan's Hisey argument, and so, it grants his motion.
The government concedes that Hisey would control the outcome of Mr. Shadoan's motion if Hisey were correctly decided. But when it supplemented the briefing on Mr. Shadoan's motion, the government explained that it had asked the Hisey panel to grant rehearing. The government based this rehearing petition on the idea that Hisey conflicts with the Supreme Court's decision in Alabama v. Shelton, 535 U.S. 654, 662 (2002). The Shelton argument didn't convince the panel to rehear the appeal, however. See United States v. Hisey, No. 20-3106 (10th Cir. Dec. 6, 2021). And our Circuit recently rejected the government's Shelton argument in a similar case. United States v. Hilleland, No. 21-3063, 2021 WL 5561019, at *1 (10th Cir. Nov. 29, 2021) (explaining that “Shelton was a Sixth Amendment case[, ]” so its “holding does not control when interpreting a federal statute, with a different text and purpose from the Sixth Amendment”).
Like Hilleland, the court concludes that “Hisey controls this case, not Shelton.” Hilleland, 2021 WL 5561019, at *1. And applying the binding precedent of Hisey, the court concludes that Mr. Shadoan occupies the same position as the defendant in that case. That is, the Kansas state court lacked any authority to impose any sentence on Mr. Shadoan other than probation. This conclusion means that no court had convicted Mr. Shadoan of “a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year[.]” 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Lacking that requisite conviction, he could not possibly commit the only crime the Indictment accused him of committing. He thus is actually innocent of the only crime of conviction.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Mr. Shadoan's Motion to Vacate (Doc. 69) is granted. This Order vacates that conviction and sentence.
THE COURT FURTHER DIRECTS THE UNITED STATES to file a motion seeking dismissal of the Indictment against Mr. Shadoan within 10 days of this Order (or, if the government does not intend to dismiss the Indictment, to file a motion seeking a status conference within the same period).
IT IS SO ORDERED.