Kim Bell v. United States
688 F. App'x 593
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Kim Bell pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine, being a felon in possession of a firearm, and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense; district court imposed a 240-month sentence enhanced under the ACCA.
- At sentencing the court found six prior Florida felonies qualified as ACCA predicates: four drug convictions under Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1) and two robbery convictions.
- Bell did not appeal his sentence, but later filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion after Johnson v. United States, arguing the robbery convictions no longer qualify under the ACCA’s now-invalidated residual clause and that his Florida drug convictions fail to qualify because § 893.13 lacks a mens rea element.
- The district court denied the § 2255 motion but granted a certificate of appealability; Bell proceeded pro se to the Eleventh Circuit.
- The Eleventh Circuit applied binding precedent holding § 893.13(1) convictions qualify as ACCA “serious drug offenses” even without an illicit-nature mens rea element, so Bell still had at least three ACCA predicates and the Johnson decision did not change the result.
Issues
| Issue | Bell's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Johnson’s invalidation of the ACCA residual clause eliminates Bell’s ACCA enhancement based on two prior robbery convictions | Johnson voids the residual clause so the two robberies no longer qualify as violent felonies under ACCA | Even if robberies no longer qualify, Bell still has at least three ACCA predicates based on prior drug convictions | The court did not need to decide effect on robberies; Bell still qualifies under ACCA due to drug convictions |
| Whether four prior Florida convictions under § 893.13(1) qualify as ACCA “serious drug offenses” despite lacking a mens rea element | § 893.13 lacks mens rea and therefore cannot be a predicate serious drug offense | Binding Eleventh Circuit precedent holds § 893.13(1) qualifies without a specific mens rea element | § 893.13(1) convictions qualify as ACCA serious drug offenses; ACCA enhancement stands |
| Whether Bell can challenge his career-offender designation under the Guidelines in § 2255 collateral review | Career-offender error merits relief | Guidelines designation errors are not cognizable on § 2255 unless fundamental or actually innocent | Such claims are not cognizable on § 2255; Bell did not show actual innocence or vacatur of predicates |
| Whether claims raised for first time on appeal (age of priors, no criminal-history points) are reviewable | These defects invalidate predicate status | Issues not raised below are waived | Court held these arguments waived for failure to raise in district court |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (Supreme Court struck down ACCA residual clause as unconstitutionally vague)
- United States v. Smith, 775 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 2014) (held Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1) qualifies as an ACCA “serious drug offense” despite lack of mens rea element)
- Spencer v. United States, 773 F.3d 1132 (11th Cir. 2014) (explaining career-offender designation error generally not cognizable on § 2255 absent actual innocence or vacated predicate)
- Lynn v. United States, 365 F.3d 1225 (11th Cir. 2004) (standard of review for § 2255 denials)