United States v. John Robert Haldemann
664 F. App'x 820
11th Cir.2016Background
- Defendant John Robert Haldemann pleaded guilty to three counts of armed bank robbery and received concurrent sentences totaling 211 months.
- District Court designated Haldemann a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 based on two prior Wisconsin felony convictions: substantial battery (Wis. Stat. § 940.19(2)) and manufacture/delivery of marijuana.
- Haldemann challenged the substantial battery conviction as not qualifying as a “crime of violence” under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2, arguing the Wisconsin statute allows convictions based on indirect conduct that does not involve the defendant’s direct use of force.
- § 4B1.2’s elements clause requires an element of use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against another; the court applies the categorical approach to prior statutes.
- The Wisconsin statute criminalizes causing substantial bodily harm by an act done with intent to cause bodily harm; “substantial bodily harm” is defined by injuries such as fractures, lacerations requiring stitches, loss of consciousness, etc.
- The Eleventh Circuit held that the statutory element of causing substantial bodily harm necessarily requires violent (physical) force, and that indirect application of force (e.g., poisoning) still qualifies under the elements clause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wisconsin substantial battery is a “crime of violence” under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2’s elements clause | Haldemann: statute permits convictions based on indirect, non-forceful acts; thus it lacks an element requiring use of physical force | Government: causing substantial bodily harm necessarily requires violent physical force, even if applied indirectly | The statute has an element of violent physical force and qualifies under the elements clause |
Key Cases Cited
- Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (establishes categorical approach for determining whether prior convictions qualify)
- Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (defines “physical force” as violent force capable of causing physical pain or injury)
- United States v. Castleman, 572 U.S. 157 (holds indirect application of force that causes bodily injury qualifies as use of force)
- United States v. Romo-Villalobos, 674 F.3d 1246 (Eleventh Circuit review standard cited)
- United States v. Alexander, 609 F.3d 1250 (use of ACCA case law for guidance on “crime of violence” under Guidelines)