Case No. 17-5554 | 11th Cir.
Preview by Michelle Divelbiss, Online Editor
The Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984 (“ACCA”) was enacted to focus on repeat offenders and mandates a 15-year sentence for anyone convicted of possession, transportation, or receipt of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) who has three or more prior convictions for “violent felony” or “serious drug offenses.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1) (2018). Violent felony is defined, in part, as “any crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year . . . that . . . has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another.” Id. § 924(e)(2)(B) (emphasis added). Precedent indicates that “physical force,” as used in the statute, means “violent force” and that “violent” means a “substantial degree of force.”
The petitioner pled guilty to a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The petitioner had previous convictions, including a robbery that occurred in 1997. Florida law defines robbery as “the taking of money or property . . . from the person or custody of another, . . . when in the course of the taking there is the use of force, violence, assault, or putting in fear.” Fla. Stat. § 812.13(1) (2018) (emphasis added).
The sentencing court found that the factual background of the petitioner’s 1997 robbery lacked sufficient force for the petitioner’s sentence to be enhanced under the ACCA. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit found that “Florida robbery is categorically a crime of violence” and that the court below erred by looking to the specific facts of the robbery instead of looking to the statutory language and elements of the crime. United States v. Stokeling, 684 F. App’x 870, 871–72 (11th Cir. 2017).
The ACCA requires “violent felony” convictions, and the petitioner claims that robbery can occur in Florida with “no pain or injury.” Brief for Petitioner at 36, Stokeling v. United States, No. 17-5554 (U.S. filed June 11, 2018). The petitioner argues that because violent force is not necessarily an element of robbery, he should not have received an enhanced sentence under the ACCA. The United States responds that “[t]he history of the ACCA confirms that robbery offenses like Florida’s satisfy the elements clause” because when originally enacted, the ACCA initially included robbery as one of “only two predicate offenses.” Brief for the United States at 7, Stokeling v. United states, No. 17-5554 (U.S. filed Aug. 3, 2018).
The outcome of this case could potentially affect not only the sentences of convicted individuals, but also the legal strategy employed in defending a client charged with a crime that could potentially fall within the provisions of the ACCA.