United States v. Dedrick D. Gandy
710 F.3d 1234
| 11th Cir. | 2013Background
- Gandy appeals a 180-month sentence for possessing a firearm after at least three violent felonies under ACCA §924(e).
- District court found three ACCA predicates: aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer, robbery, and burglary of a structure.
- Gandy also had a 2001 simple vehicle flight conviction (Fla. Stat. §316.1935(2)) potentially qualifying under ACCA after Petite, despite earlier Harrison precedent.
- Argument centers on whether aggravated assault and vehicle flight predicates were properly established via Shepard-approved documents and records, and whether any alleged indictment defects affect predicates.
- Court ultimately affirms, holding three offenses qualify under ACCA and that plain-error Rule 11 issues do not undermine sentence.
- The court notes Petite abrogated Harrison on vehicle flight and addresses residual-clause vagueness consistent with Supreme Court precedents.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ACCA predicate qualification for three offenses | Gandy—aggravated assault and burglary predicates not properly proven | Gandy—some predicates not valid or properly charged | Accord: three offenses valid predicates under ACCA |
| Evidence standard under Shepard for aggravated assault | Information and judgment showed aggravated assault offense | Lack of explicit citation to substantive statute not fatal | District court properly relied on information to establish offense |
| Effect of misrepresentation at sentencing on Rule 11 | Misrepresentations by prosecutor/judge affected understanding of penalties | Error harmless; plea not withdrawn | No plain error; sentence affirmed under ACCA mandate |
| Residual clause vagueness and Petite abrogation | Residual clause vague but sufficiently definite per Sykes/James | Clause unconstitutionally vague | Residual clause held not unconstitutionally vague; Petite applies to vehicle flight predicate |
| Indictment and Almendarez-Torres doctrine | Aggravated assault predicate not alleged in indictment | Almendarez-Torres controls; not require indictment for predicates | Foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres; predicates may be used without indictment amendment |
Key Cases Cited
- Petite v. United States, 703 F.3d 1290 (11th Cir. 2013) (abrogated Harrison; simple vehicle flight qualifies under ACCA residual clause)
- Sykes v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2267 (Supreme Court 2011) (abrogated Harrison; residual clause with intelligible application)
- Harrison v. United States, 558 F.3d 1280 (11th Cir. 2009) (held simple vehicle flight not a violent felony under ACCA prior to Sykes; later abrogated)
- James v. United States, 550 U.S. 192 (Supreme Court 2007) (defined residual-clause standard for ACCA)
- Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (Supreme Court 1998) (indictment-defect rule for prior convictions not required to prove predicate)