United States v. Keenan Joyner
882 F.3d 1369
11th Cir.2018Background
- Joyner was indicted under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) & 924(e)(1) for being a felon in possession of a Sig Sauer .45 and ammunition; the only contested issue at trial was whether he actually possessed the firearm.
- Surveillance officers observed Joyner approach a parked car; Detective Garcia testified he saw Joyner holding a gun near his waistband, then open the driver’s door and slide the gun under the driver’s seat.
- A second officer (the surveillance “eyeball”) did not see the gun in Joyner’s hand but observed Joyner open the driver’s door; the gun was recovered under the driver’s seat and contained an eight-round magazine.
- No usable fingerprints or conclusive DNA tied Joyner to the gun; parties stipulated Joyner had a prior felony and the firearm affected interstate commerce.
- During deliberations the jury asked for clarification of “actual possession” and whether possession of the vehicle affected possession of the gun; the court replied that vehicle possession was not at issue and directed the jury to the written definitions of “actual possession” and “knowingly.”
- At sentencing the government sought ACCA treatment based on three prior Florida convictions (resisting an officer with violence; attempted strong-arm robbery; possession with intent to sell cocaine); the district court applied ACCA and sentenced Joyner to 200 months’ imprisonment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court’s supplemental jury instruction adequately resolved the jury’s question about possession | Government: court’s response (referring jury to definitions and saying vehicle possession not at issue) accurately guided the jury to decide actual, knowing possession of the gun | Joyner: court should have clarified that mere presence of the gun in the vehicle does not establish Joyner’s possession; requested additional language | Affirmed — court did not abuse discretion; response was correct, confined to the jury’s question, and did not misstate law |
| Whether Joyner’s prior Florida conviction for resisting an officer with violence qualifies as an ACCA violent felony under the elements clause | Government: Fla. § 843.01 necessarily includes violence and thus satisfies the elements clause | Joyner: argued (preserved) but precedent supports that resisting with violence is a violent felony | Affirmed — conviction categorically qualifies as a violent felony under the ACCA |
| Whether Joyner’s prior conviction for attempted strong-arm robbery qualifies as an ACCA violent felony under the elements clause | Government: Florida robbery (and attempted robbery under Fla. attempt statute) requires force/violent/threatening conduct and thus meets the elements clause | Joyner: argued the force element is insufficient for ACCA; sought to contest categorization | Affirmed — Lockley and subsequent Eleventh Circuit precedent hold Florida attempted robbery categorically qualifies as a violent felony |
| Whether applying the ACCA based on prior convictions not alleged in the indictment violates the Constitution | Government: ACCA enhancement is a sentencing recidivist provision and prior convictions need not be charged to the jury | Joyner: contended increased statutory penalties should have been alleged in indictment or proven to jury | Held — Almendarez-Torres controls; prior convictions need not be alleged in indictment or proven to a jury |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Lopez, 590 F.3d 1238 (11th Cir.) (review standard for district court responses to jury questions)
- United States v. Baston, 818 F.3d 651 (11th Cir.) (supplemental instructions must answer within question’s specific limits)
- United States v. House, 684 F.3d 1173 (11th Cir.) (reversal requires substantial and ineradicable doubt that jury was properly guided)
- United States v. Lockley, 632 F.3d 1238 (11th Cir.) (Florida robbery and attempted robbery categorically satisfy elements-clause crime-of-violence definitions)
- United States v. Fritts, 841 F.3d 937 (11th Cir.) (applies Lockley to ACCA analysis)
- Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (U.S.) (prior convictions may be used to increase sentence without being alleged in the indictment)
- Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (U.S.) (struck down ACCA residual clause; distinguishes elements-clause analysis)