Deon Lionel Wilson v. Warden, FCC Coleman
581 F. App'x 750
11th Cir.2014Background
- Deon Lionel Wilson, a federal prisoner, filed a pro se § 2241 habeas petition claiming his ACCA-enhanced sentence exceeded the statutory maximum.
- He argued the § 2255(e) "savings clause" made § 2241 available because his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) was illegal.
- The Eleventh Circuit has limited circumstances in which § 2255 is "inadequate or ineffective," and set tests in cases such as Wofford and Bryant.
- Wilson’s predicate state conviction was Florida "battery by a detainee"; after Johnson v. United States, simple battery may not always qualify as an ACCA violent felony.
- The court analyzed (1) whether Wilson met Bryant’s multi-part test to "open the portal" to § 2241 via the savings clause and (2) whether, on the merits, his battery conviction nonetheless qualified as a violent felony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2255(e) savings clause permits Wilson to proceed under § 2241 | Savings clause applies because ACCA enhancement produced sentence beyond statutory maximum | Wilson cannot satisfy Bryant/Wofford factors showing §2255 was inadequate | Denied — Wilson failed Bryant’s requirements and cannot proceed under §2241 |
| Whether Florida "battery by a detainee" is categorically not an ACCA violent felony after Johnson | Johnson renders simple battery non-violent; Wilson’s predicate thus not violent | PSI facts showed punching and breaking a nose — physical force and intent to harm — so it is violent | Denied — factual/PSI record establishes violent force; conviction qualifies as violent felony |
| Whether Descamps or other precedent changes the outcome | Descamps precludes modified categorical approach for indivisible statutes | Florida battery is divisible; modified categorical approach and Johnson apply; Descamps does not help Wilson | Denied — Descamps inapplicable because statute is divisible; ACCA application stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Cook v. Wiley, 208 F.3d 1314 (11th Cir. 2000) (standard of review for § 2241 availability)
- Sawyer v. Holder, 326 F.3d 1363 (11th Cir. 2003) (§ 2255 generally proper vehicle for collateral attack)
- Antonelli v. Warden, U.S.P. Atlanta, 542 F.3d 1348 (11th Cir. 2008) (distinguishing challenges to execution vs. validity of sentence)
- Wofford v. Scott, 177 F.3d 1236 (11th Cir. 1999) (initial formulation of savings-clause requirements)
- Gilbert v. United States, 640 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 2011) (limits on savings-clause relief)
- Williams v. Warden, Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 713 F.3d 1332 (11th Cir. 2013) (clarifying Wofford is necessary but not sufficient)
- Bryant v. Coleman, 738 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2013) (five-part test to "open the portal" for ACCA sentencing claims)
- United States v. Johnson, 559 U.S. 133 (2010) (simple battery may lack the violent-force element required for ACCA)
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013) (modified categorical approach unavailable for indivisible statutes)
- United States v. Ramirez-Flores, 743 F.3d 816 (11th Cir. 2014) (permissible use of PSI facts under Johnson)
Outcome: Affirmed — district court’s dismissal of Wilson’s § 2241 petition was correct.