634 F. App'x 227
11th Cir.2015Background
- Anthony Johnson, a convicted felon, was tried and convicted under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(e) for possession of a firearm and ammunition and sentenced to 235 months under the ACCA enhancement.
- On the morning of trial Johnson sought a continuance to retain new counsel; the district court denied the request and proceeded with appointed counsel.
- Johnson was forced to stand trial briefly in identifiable prison clothing because no delay was granted for a clothing change.
- The government introduced a 911 call and evidence about a shooting that occurred the night of Johnson’s arrest; Johnson moved in limine to exclude that evidence and later challenged discovery violations under Rule 16.
- Johnson disputed the ACCA enhancement, arguing for the first time on appeal that Shepard/Descamps limits preclude using Shepard documents (or PSI facts) to prove dates/timing required to show prior felonies were committed on different occasions, and raised vagueness and Sixth Amendment challenges to ACCA.
- The district court applied the ACCA enhancement based on prior armed-robbery convictions; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed on all issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of last-minute continuance to retain counsel | Johnson: denial violated Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice | Gov: court balanced calendar, appointed counsel ready; delay would be significant | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; denial reasonable given factors and preparedness of appointed counsel |
| Forced to stand trial in prison clothing | Johnson: compelled appearance in prison garb violated Fourteenth Amendment | Gov: error was harmless given strong evidence | District court erred but error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; conviction affirmed |
| Admission of 911 call and shooting evidence; Rule 16 discovery | Johnson: evidence unfairly prejudicial and discovery violation prejudiced defense | Gov: evidence was contextually intertwined; limiting instruction and no prejudice | Affirmed — Rule 403 admission not an abuse; no Rule 16 prejudice warranting reversal |
| ACCA enhancement: use of Shepard documents / PSI to show prior offenses on different occasions; Sixth Amendment & vagueness challenges | Johnson: Shepard/Descamps limit factual inquiry; PSI reliance improper; ACCA residual clause vague; jury must find predicates | Gov: courts may use Shepard-approved documents and undisputed PSI facts; Almendarez-Torres permits judicial reliance on prior convictions; Johnson’s predicates fall under elements clause | Affirmed — no plain error; Shepard/PSI use permissible here; Almendarez-Torres still binding; predicates qualify under elements clause (residual clause not necessary) |
| Procedural and substantive reasonableness of sentence | Johnson: sentence procedurally/substantively unreasonable | Gov: ACCA properly applied; district court weighed §3553(a) factors and criminal history appropriately | Affirmed — sentence not procedurally or substantively unreasonable (within Guidelines and below statutory maximum) |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzalez-Lopez v. United States, 548 U.S. 140 (right to counsel of choice is structural error)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (limits documents courts may consult to identify elements of prior convictions)
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (modified categorical approach and limits on comparing statutory elements)
- Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (prior convictions may be used to enhance sentence without jury finding)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (facts increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum must be submitted to jury, except prior convictions)
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (ACCA residual clause void for vagueness)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (standard of review for reasonableness of sentences)
- Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (plain error review framework)
- Sneed v. United States, 600 F.3d 1326 (separate occasions require distinct criminal episodes; use of Shepard materials for occasion analysis)
- Ramirez-Flores v. United States, 743 F.3d 816 (courts may consider undisputed PSI facts in sentencing)