United States v. Kelvin Esprit
841 F.3d 1235
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Kelvin Esprit was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm; the district court applied the ACCA enhancement based on four prior violent-felony convictions, including two Florida burglary convictions, and sentenced him to 188 months.
- ACCA imposes a mandatory minimum 15-year sentence if a defendant has three prior convictions for a "violent felony," defined by (1) the elements clause, (2) the enumerated-crimes clause (including "burglary"), or (3) the residual clause.
- Florida burglary statute criminalizes entering a dwelling, structure, or conveyance with intent to commit an offense and defines "dwelling" and "structure" to include curtilage.
- After Johnson v. United States struck down ACCA’s residual clause as unconstitutionally vague, the government conceded Esprit’s Florida burglaries could not qualify under the residual clause but initially argued they qualified as the ACCA enumerated offense "burglary."
- In light of Mathis and controlling Eleventh Circuit precedent (Lockett, Descamps framework), the government agreed Florida burglary is indivisible and therefore cannot be treated as generic burglary for ACCA purposes; the Eleventh Circuit agreed and held the Florida burglary convictions cannot serve as ACCA predicates.
- The court vacated Esprit’s ACCA-enhanced sentence and remanded for resentencing without the ACCA enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Florida burglary convictions qualify as ACCA "burglary" (enumerated crimes clause) | Esprit: Florida statute is not generic burglary because it covers curtilage; thus convictions cannot be ACCA predicates. | Government: Initially argued residual clause applied (then conceded after Johnson); later agreed Florida burglary is indivisible post-Mathis and cannot qualify as generic burglary. | The court held Florida burglary is indivisible and includes non-generic burglary (curtilage), so convictions are not ACCA predicate burglaries. |
| Whether the modified categorical approach may be used to identify generic burglary under Fla. Stat. § 810.02 | Esprit: Modified categorical approach cannot be used because Florida’s statute lists means, not alternative elements, so statute is indivisible. | Government: Ultimately conceded the statute is indivisible after Mathis and Lockett, so Shepard documents cannot save the convictions as generic burglary. | The court held the Florida statute is indivisible; the modified categorical approach does not apply. |
| Whether the residual clause could sustain the enhancement | Esprit: Residual clause invalid after Johnson; cannot sustain enhancement. | Government: Conceded after Johnson residual clause cannot be used. | The court agreed residual clause is invalid and cannot support the ACCA enhancement. |
| Remedy given fewer than three qualifying predicates without Florida burglaries | Esprit: With burglaries excluded, he has only two qualifying prior violent felonies and is not subject to ACCA. | Government: Conceded that without the burglaries Esprit lacks three predicates and should be resentenced. | The court vacated the ACCA-enhanced sentence and remanded for resentencing without ACCA enhancement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (establishing "generic" burglary concept for ACCA)
- Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (limiting modified categorical approach to divisible statutes)
- Mathis v. United States, 579 U.S. 500 (clarifying means v. elements; lists of means do not make a statute divisible)
- James v. United States, 550 U.S. 192 (addressing Florida burglary vis-à-vis generic burglary and ACCA)
- Lockett v. United States, 810 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir.) (explaining divisibility inquiry and application of modified categorical approach)
- Weeks v. United States, 711 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir.) (pre-Descamps treatment of Florida burglary and use of Shepard documents)
- United States v. Howard, 742 F.3d 1334 (11th Cir.) (discussing post-Descamps framework)
- United States v. Matthews, 466 F.3d 1271 (11th Cir.) (holding Florida curtilage treatment under earlier residual-clause analysis)