United States v. Antonio Kilpatrick Heard
677 F. App'x 636
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Antonio Heard appealed his sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) and raised three issues: whether his Georgia burglary conviction qualifies as ACCA predicate burglary; whether his sentence was substantively unreasonable; and whether due process was violated when the district court relied on hearsay testimony about threats Heard made.
- The district court had concluded Georgia burglary statute lacked a breaking-and-entering element and therefore could not serve as ACCA predicate burglary.
- The Eleventh Circuit panel reviewed controlling precedent interpreting the same Georgia statute and the record, notably United States v. Gundy.
- The court found the Georgia burglary statute to be divisible and to sometimes include the elements of generic burglary (unlawful entry into a dwelling or building with intent to commit a crime).
- Because the district court had applied the wrong legal test, the Eleventh Circuit vacated Heard’s sentence and remanded for the district court to determine (using Shepard) whether Heard’s particular conviction matched generic burglary.
- The court affirmed that the district court did not abuse its discretion in considering hearsay testimony from an unidentified inmate at sentencing, finding sufficient indicia of reliability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Georgia burglary statute matches ACCA generic burglary | Heard: Generic burglary requires breaking and entering; Georgia statute lacks that element | Government: Gundy controls; Georgia statute is divisible and can match generic burglary | Georgia statute can constitute generic burglary; remand to determine if Heard’s conviction was the generic form |
| Whether Heard’s sentence was substantively unreasonable | Heard: Sentence was unreasonable given detention conditions | Government: Not addressed after remand | Moot (sentence vacated and remanded) |
| Whether district court could consider hearsay from unidentified inmate at sentencing | Heard: Reliance on unreliable hearsay violated due process | Government: Sentencing courts may consider such hearsay with indicia of reliability | No due process violation; court properly considered the testimony |
| Proper remand procedure to establish predicate status | Heard: District already erred on legal standard | Government: Use Shepard framework on remand to review record of conviction | Remanded for district court to apply Shepard and determine whether record shows generic burglary conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gundy, 842 F.3d 1156 (11th Cir. 2016) (interpreting Georgia burglary statute as divisible and aligning it with generic burglary)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (records of conviction limit the inquiry into prior offenses for sentence-enhancement statutes)
- United States v. Rodriguez, 765 F.2d 1546 (11th Cir. 1985) (district courts may consider hearsay from unidentified declarants at sentencing under certain reliability indicia)
- United States v. Reme, 738 F.2d 1156 (11th Cir. 1984) (challenge to hearsay at sentencing requires contradictory record evidence to undermine reliability)