958 F.3d 1093
11th Cir.2020Background
- Welch pled guilty in 2010 to being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
- Presentence report classified him as an Armed Career Criminal (ACCA) based on three prior Florida convictions: two 1996 strong-arm robbery convictions (Fla. Stat. § 812.13(1)) and a 2005 felony-battery conviction (Fla. Stat. § 784.041(1)), triggering a 15-year mandatory minimum.
- On direct appeal this Court upheld the ACCA enhancement, relying on the ACCA’s residual clause (then still valid) to treat the robberies as violent felonies.
- After the Supreme Court in Samuel Johnson invalidated the ACCA residual clause and later held that decision retroactive on collateral review, Welch’s § 2255 attack was remanded to this Court to consider whether his predicates qualify under the ACCA’s elements clause.
- The Eleventh Circuit concluded that binding precedent (notably Fritts and Vail‑Bailon, and the Supreme Court’s Stokeling and Curtis Johnson authority) requires treating Florida robbery and Florida felony battery as violent felonies under the ACCA’s elements clause, and affirmed the denial of Welch’s § 2255 motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Welch’s pre‑1997 Florida robbery convictions qualify as ACCA "violent felonies" under the elements clause | Welch: Fourth DCA convictions could have rested on "mere snatching," which lacks the "violent force" the elements clause requires | Government: Florida robbery has always required force sufficient to overcome resistance and thus meets the elements-clause standard; Eleventh Circuit precedent controls | Held: Panel affirms—binding precedent (Fritts, Dowd, Lockley, Stokeling) forecloses Welch’s argument; Florida robbery qualifies under the elements clause |
| Whether Welch’s Florida felony‑battery conviction qualifies as an ACCA "violent felony" under the elements clause | Welch preserved the argument but concedes Vail‑Bailon; seeks preservation for further review | Government: Vail‑Bailon (en banc) holds felony battery qualifies as a crime of violence under the Guidelines and analogous to ACCA’s elements clause | Held: Affirmed—Vail‑Bailon controls and felony battery is a violent felony under the ACCA |
Key Cases Cited
- Samuel Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (invalidating ACCA residual clause as void for vagueness)
- Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016) (holding Samuel Johnson retroactive on collateral review and remanding)
- United States v. Fritts, 841 F.3d 937 (11th Cir. 2016) (holding Florida robbery has always required force sufficient to satisfy ACCA elements clause)
- Stokeling v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 544 (2019) (confirming that robbery requiring overcoming resistance can qualify as use of violent force under ACCA)
- United States v. Vail‑Bailon, 868 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. en banc 2017) (holding Florida felony battery qualifies as a crime of violence under the Guidelines)
- Curtis Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (2010) (defining "physical force" in ACCA elements clause as violent force)
- United States v. Dowd, 451 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2006) (treating Florida robbery as a violent felony under ACCA elements clause)
- United States v. Lockley, 632 F.3d 1238 (11th Cir. 2011) (holding Florida robbery is a crime of violence under the Guidelines analogous to ACCA analysis)