United States v. Latroy Burris
896 F.3d 320
5th Cir.2018Background
- Burris pleaded guilty in 2016 to being a felon in possession of a firearm and to a drug offense; the PSR labeled him an Armed Career Criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) based on three prior Texas convictions (robbery (1993), aggravated robbery (1993), and a 2012 drug conviction).
- The district court adopted the PSR and applied the ACCA enhancement, sentencing Burris to 188 months; Burris appealed the ACCA predicate determination for his simple robbery conviction.
- After briefing, Burris conceded his aggravated-robbery conviction qualified as a violent felony, so the appeal concerns only whether Texas simple robbery (§ 29.02(a)) is a violent felony under the ACCA elements (force) clause.
- Texas robbery has two alternatives: (1) intentionally/knowingly/recklessly causes bodily injury (robbery-by-injury) or (2) intentionally/knowingly threatens or places another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death (robbery-by-threat).
- The panel analyzed whether the Texas definition of "bodily injury" (physical pain, illness, or any impairment of physical condition) necessarily requires the use of "physical force" as defined by the Supreme Court in Curtis Johnson (i.e., "violent force—force capable of causing physical pain or injury").
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Burris's Texas robbery conviction is a violent felony under ACCA elements clause | Burris: Texas robbery does not have "use of physical force" as an element because "causing bodily injury" can occur without violent (Johnson-level) force | Government: causing bodily injury under Texas law necessarily involves force capable of causing pain or injury, so robbery is a violent felony | The court held Texas robbery-by-injury does not categorically require use of physical (violent) force and thus is not a violent felony under § 924(e)(2)(B)(i) |
| Whether the court must treat § 29.02(a) as divisible and identify the specific alternative of conviction | Burris: conviction documents do not specify which prong; court must analyze both alternatives | Government: (argued implicitly) if robbery-by-injury requires force, divisibility analysis unnecessary | Court concluded it need not decide divisibility because under either approach robbery-by-injury lacks a force element, so analysis of both alternatives was warranted |
| Whether precedent (Vargas‑Duran / Villegas‑Hernandez) that distinguishes causing injury from using force controls | Burris: prior Fifth Circuit precedent supports that causation of injury can occur without use of force | Government: recent Supreme Court decisions (Castleman, Voisine) narrow that distinction and should apply | Court relied on Vargas‑Duran line and independent analysis of Texas law and Supreme Court precedents to conclude causing bodily injury can occur without Johnson‑level force |
| Remedy — effect on Burris’s sentence | Burris: if robbery is not a violent felony, ACCA enhancement improper | Government: ACCA enhancement proper | Court vacated Burris’s ACCA-based sentence and remanded for resentencing without the ACCA enhancement |
Key Cases Cited
- Curtis Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (defining "physical force" in ACCA as "violent force—force capable of causing physical pain or injury")
- United States v. Castleman, 572 U.S. 157 (distinguishing domestic‑violence context; holding that "causing bodily injury" qualifies as misdemeanor domestic violence under common‑law force)
- Voisine v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2272 (reckless conduct can constitute "use" of force in domestic‑violence context)
- United States v. Vargas‑Duran, 356 F.3d 598 (5th Cir. en banc) (holding Texas "cause bodily injury" statutes can cover conduct that does not require use of force)
- United States v. Rico‑Mejia, 859 F.3d 318 (5th Cir. 2017) (refusing to extend Castleman to generic crime‑of‑violence analysis; treating Vargas‑Duran line as controlling)
- United States v. Hall, 877 F.3d 800 (8th Cir. 2017) (holding Texas robbery is a violent felony — cited by dissent and discussed as a contrasting authority)