Denson v. United States
804 F.3d 1339
11th Cir.2015Background
- Tony Denson, a federal prisoner, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing.
- Denson argued counsel was deficient for not objecting to treating his Florida conviction for possession of a short‑barreled shotgun (Fla. Stat. § 790.221(1)) as a “crime of violence” for career‑offender enhancement under U.S.S.G. §§ 4B1.1 and 4B1.2.
- The district court denied relief but granted a certificate of appealability on the ineffective‑assistance issue.
- The Eleventh Circuit previously affirmed; the Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated, and remanded in light of Johnson v. United States.
- On remand the Eleventh Circuit concluded Johnson does not affect this appeal and reinstated its prior decision denying Denson § 2255 relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not objecting to career‑offender classification based on Florida short‑barreled shotgun conviction | Counsel should have raised that the Florida offense is not a “crime of violence” and objected under Begay/Descamps logic | An objection would have been meritless because the Sentencing Guidelines commentary expressly treats possession of a sawed‑off/similar shotgun as a crime of violence | Counsel not deficient: failing to raise a meritless objection is not ineffective assistance |
| Whether Denson suffered prejudice from counsel’s failure to object | If counsel had objected, career‑offender status would not have been imposed and sentencing outcome would have changed | Because the Guidelines commentary clearly classifies the offense as a crime of violence, an objection would not likely have changed the sentence | No prejudice shown under Strickland; § 2255 relief denied |
| Whether Begay/McGill/Descamps undermine the Guidelines commentary’s force here | Begay and McGill show analogous offenses may not qualify under a residual clause; counsel should have argued similarity analysis | Stinson binds courts to follow authoritative Guidelines commentary unless it is unconstitutional, statutorily invalid, or plainly erroneous; Hall forecloses applying Begay‑style categorical analysis to the commentary | Begay/McGill do not alter outcome because Hall controls: commentary is authoritative and governing here |
| Whether Johnson v. United States (ACCA residual clause vagueness) affects this case | Johnson invalidates residual clauses and thus might undermine career‑offender application under §4B1.2 | Johnson applies to statutes that define crimes/punishments, not to the advisory Sentencing Guidelines; Matchett and Eleventh Circuit precedent foreclose a Johnson‑based attack on the Guidelines | Johnson does not apply to the advisory Guidelines; it does not change the court's prior ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance two‑prong test)
- Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36 (Sentencing Guidelines commentary authoritative unless unconstitutional/statutorily invalid/plainly erroneous)
- Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (residual‑clause similarity framework)
- United States v. Hall, 714 F.3d 1270 (11th Cir.) (Guidelines commentary binding re: sawed‑off/short‑barreled shotgun)
- United States v. McGill, 618 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir.) (Begay applied to ACCA: Florida short‑barreled shotgun not ACCA violent felony)
- Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015) (ACCA residual clause void for vagueness; Court explains limited application to statutes, not advisory Guidelines)