The Sixth Circuit's recent published decision in Potter v. United States, affirming the district court's denial of a post-Johnson habeas petition, is yet another decision restricting Johnson habeas relief. In this case, Potter filed a habeas petition requesting resentencing in light Johnson by claiming his Georgia burglary conviction no longer qualified as a "violent felony" after the Supreme Court's decision. The district court denied his motion, holding that the conviction still qualified under the Armed Career Criminal Act's ("ACCA") enumerated offense clause.
Potter fared no better on appeal. Noting that Potter's presentence report did not specify under which clause his burglary conviction qualified under the ACCA and that he did not challenge that part of the report, the Court concluded the district court could find that the conviction qualified under the enumerated offense clause. It was up to Potter, the Court concluded, to prove the district court relied upon the ACCA's now-defunct residual clause. Further, the Court deferred to the district court, which, it claimed, was in the best position to know whether it relied upon the residual clause.
On a parting note, the Court also issued a general advisory to future Johnson habeas cases: if you are going to seek a resentencing under Johnson, bring some proof the district court relied upon the residual clause. Johnson, the Court held, did not "open the door" for collateral attacks any time the district court may have relied upon the residual clause.