United States v. Bennie Wiley
703 F. App'x 950
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Bennie Wiley was on supervised release and was accused of armed trespassing under Fla. Stat. § 810.08(2)(c).
- Wiley went to girlfriend Ashley Tate’s home; Tate initially consented but twice told Wiley to leave and revoked consent.
- Wiley remained in the house overnight after being told to leave and wielded a folding knife with an ~3-inch blade while at the residence.
- Tate testified Wiley brandished the open knife to scare/confine her and the knife cut her when she tried to take it from him.
- District court revoked Wiley’s supervised release based on a preponderance finding that he committed armed trespassing; Wiley appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wiley was a trespasser after Tate revoked consent | Tate: she revoked consent; Wiley stayed -> trespass | Wiley: he had consent to be there | Court: Consent was revoked by Tate; staying after revocation made Wiley a trespasser |
| Whether Wiley’s knife qualified as a “dangerous weapon” for armed trespass | Government/District Ct: open, wielded, and used to wound -> dangerous weapon | Wiley: ~3-inch folding blade is a common pocketknife and not a dangerous weapon | Court: Knife was used in open position, wielded to scare/confine, and cut Tate; not protected by common-pocketknife exception; qualifies as dangerous weapon |
| Applicability of L.B. common-pocketknife rule | Wiley: L.B. treats blades under 4 inches as common pocketknife exception | Government: L.B. inapplicable where knife is open or used as weapon | Court: Followed Florida decisions limiting L.B.; exception inapplicable when open/used as weapon |
| Standard of review for revocation and factual findings | N/A | N/A | Court: Reviewed for abuse of discretion; factual findings reviewed for clear error and affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Velasquez Velasquez, 524 F.3d 1248 (per curiam) (standard: revocation of supervised release reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- United States v. Rosales-Bruno, 676 F.3d 1017 (state courts control construction of state-law elements)
- United States v. Ndiaye, 434 F.3d 1270 (factfinder’s permissible view of evidence is not clear error)
- United States v. Almand, 992 F.2d 316 (district court factual findings reviewed for clear error)
- United States v. McPhee, 336 F.3d 1269 (deference to credibility determinations)
- Mitchell v. State, 698 So. 2d 555 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.) (elements of armed trespass under Fla. law)
- Smith v. State, 778 So. 2d 329 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.) (consent can be revoked by actual communication)
- L.B. v. State, 700 So. 2d 370 (Fla.) (defined common pocketknife as blade under 4 inches in folded position)
- Porter v. State, 798 So. 2d 855 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.) (L.B. exception may not apply when knife is open)
- Martin v. State, 747 So. 2d 474 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.) (pocketknife can be a deadly weapon when used as a weapon)