940 F.3d 1282
11th Cir.2019Background
- Steiner and co-defendant Ware were charged with conspiracy to commit carjacking, aiding and abetting carjacking (18 U.S.C. § 2119), and aiding and abetting the using/ carrying of a firearm during a crime of violence (18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 924(c)).
- On the night of the offense Ware loaded two guns into the Blazer; there was no trial evidence that Steiner actually saw Ware load the guns. Steiner drove the vehicle; Ware and Wilson later brandished and fired the guns during an initial robbery, after which the group decided to take the victims’ car (a carjacking) and Steiner drove the stolen vehicle away.
- At trial (2009) the jury was not instructed that conviction for aiding and abetting a § 924(c) offense required “advance knowledge” of a co‑actor’s firearm (Rosemond was decided in 2014). The jury convicted; sentence was 195 months; the conviction was affirmed on direct appeal under the pre‑Rosemond law.
- Steiner filed a § 2255 motion raising: (1) insufficiency of evidence under Rosemond (advance‑knowledge), (2) erroneous jury instructions (no advance‑knowledge instruction) / ineffective assistance for failing to object, and (3) that the predicate (aiding and abetting carjacking) is not a crime of violence after Davis. The district court denied relief and granted a COA on three claims; this appeal followed.
- The Eleventh Circuit held that Rosemond announced a new substantive rule that is retroactive on collateral review, but that the trial evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to infer Steiner had advance knowledge; it also held Davis did not invalidate the predicate because aiding and abetting carjacking qualifies under the elements clause, and counsel was not ineffective for failing to anticipate Rosemond. The denial of a COA on the jury‑instruction claim was not subject to remand.
Issues
| Issue | Steiner's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rosemond announced a new rule that applies retroactively on collateral review | Rosemond announced a new rule entitling him to rely on § 2255(f)(3) | Rosemond was not retroactive (government conceded retroactivity on appeal) | Court: Rosemond announced a new substantive rule and is retroactive on collateral review |
| Sufficiency of evidence under Rosemond (advance knowledge) | No evidence Steiner knew of the guns in advance or had opportunity to withdraw | Evidence of continued participation after guns were used (helping free Impala, driving it, evading police) permits inference of advance knowledge | Court: Viewing evidence in government’s favor, a rational jury could find Steiner had advance knowledge—conviction stands |
| Whether Davis (invalidating §924(c)(3)(B) residual clause) voids the predicate offense | Aiding/abetting a carjacking no longer qualifies as a "crime of violence" after Davis | Aiding and abetting carjacking qualifies under §924(c)(3)(A) (elements clause) per Eleventh Circuit precedent | Court: Davis does not affect conviction; aiding/abetting carjacking is a crime of violence under the elements clause |
| Ineffective assistance and jury‑instruction claim (failure to object to lack of advance‑knowledge instruction) | Counsel was ineffective for not objecting to missing Rosemond instruction | Rosemond was decided after Steiner’s 2009 trial; counsel not required to predict change in law | Court: No deficient performance—failure to anticipate Rosemond is not ineffective assistance; claim denied |
| COA/ remand on jury‑instruction COA denial | District court failed to rule on COA for jury‑instruction claim; request to remand for explicit ruling | District court granted COA on three claims and was not required to explain denial of others; no remand necessary | Court: Declined remand—district court’s order effectively denied COA on that claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Rosemond v. United States, 572 U.S. 65 (2014) (imposes "advance knowledge" requirement for accomplice liability under §924(c))
- United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019) (struck down §924(c)(3)(B) residual clause as vague)
- Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348 (2004) (standards for retroactivity of new rules on collateral review)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- In re Colon, 826 F.3d 1301 (11th Cir. 2016) (holding aiding and abetting a crime of violence qualifies under §924(c)(3)(A))
- Ovalles v. United States, 905 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 2018) (carjacking is a crime of violence under the elements clause)
- Farmer v. United States, 867 F.3d 837 (7th Cir. 2017) (concluded Rosemond announces a substantive rule and is retroactive)