United States v. Denard Stokeling
684 F. App'x 870
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Denard Stokeling had a prior Florida robbery conviction (pre-1999 statutory context relevant) and the district court declined to apply ACCA enhancement, finding the Florida robbery conviction was not a "violent felony."
- The government appealed the district court’s refusal to apply the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), which increases mandatory minimums for defendants with three prior violent felonies.
- The central legal question: whether a Florida robbery conviction under Fla. Stat. § 812.13 (as interpreted before Florida’s 1999 sudden-snatching statute) categorically qualifies as a violent felony under ACCA’s elements clause.
- The Eleventh Circuit majority applied circuit precedent (notably United States v. Fritts and United States v. Lockley) holding that Florida robbery contains a force element sufficient to satisfy ACCA’s elements clause and therefore vacated and remanded for resentencing with enhancement.
- The district court had improperly relied on the underlying facts of Stokeling’s offense rather than the required categorical approach (which examines only statutory elements, not specific conduct).
- A concurrence (Judge Martin) agreed the precedent controls but argued Fritts was wrongly decided because earlier Florida law (McCloud) allowed conviction based on "any degree of force" and thus some pre-1997 Florida robberies (including sudden snatching) would not meet ACCA’s "physical force" requirement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a pre-1999 Florida robbery under Fla. Stat. § 812.13 categorically qualifies as an ACCA violent felony under the elements clause | Stokeling: pre-1999 § 812.13 encompassed "sudden snatching"/minimal force, so it did not always require the level of force ACCA demands | Government: Florida robbery contains a force element (use/overcoming of victim resistance) and therefore categorically meets ACCA’s elements clause | Court: Circuit precedent controls; Florida robbery categorically qualifies as a violent felony; vacated sentence and remanded for resentencing with ACCA enhancement |
| Proper methodology for ACCA predicate analysis | Stokeling: rely on categorical approach (only elements); district court incorrectly relied on underlying facts | Government: also agreed categorical approach controls; district court erred | Court: district court erred by looking to underlying facts; must apply the categorical approach |
| Whether Lockley/Fritts precedent applies to pre-Robinson convictions | Stokeling: earlier Florida cases (McCloud) limited force to "any degree"; Lockley and Fritts misapplied Florida law across time | Government: Lockley and Fritts correctly hold § 812.13 contains requisite force and apply to robbery convictions generally | Court: Bound by Fritts/Lockley; precedent controls and forecloses Stokeling’s argument |
| Validity of Fritts reasoning (concurrence perspective) | N/A (concurrence criticizes Fritts) | N/A | Concurrence: agrees outcome for Stokeling but argues Fritts wrongly ignored McCloud and misapplied categorical analysis for pre-1997 convictions |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Fritts, 841 F.3d 937 (11th Cir. 2016) (held Florida robbery categorically a violent felony and rejected sudden-snatching argument)
- United States v. Lockley, 632 F.3d 1238 (11th Cir. 2011) (found Florida robbery elements satisfy elements-clause force requirement)
- Robinson v. State, 692 So.2d 883 (Fla. 1997) (Florida Supreme Court: robbery requires force sufficient to overcome victim resistance)
- McCloud v. State, 335 So.2d 257 (Fla. 1976) (earlier Florida precedent stating "any degree of force" suffices for robbery)
- United States v. Welch, 683 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2012) (treated sudden snatching as least culpable conduct for pre-Robinson robbery conviction)
- Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (2010) (interpretation of "physical force" in ACCA elements clause)
- Moncrieffe v. Holder, 569 U.S. 184 (2013) (describes formal categorical approach and presuming conviction rests on least culpable conduct)
- McNeill v. United States, 563 U.S. 816 (2011) (requires examining the version of state law in effect at the time of conviction)
- United States v. Owens, 672 F.3d 966 (11th Cir. 2012) (discusses "substantial degree of force" standard relevant to elements-clause analysis)