United States v. Robert William Green
842 F.3d 1299
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- In April 2013 officers found Robert Green hiding shoeless in a closet at Jodi Simmons’s trailer; nearby on a nightstand they observed a loaded .22 firearm, ammunition, drug paraphernalia, men’s shoes and a camouflage jacket. Green had been on GPS monitoring and had frequently been at Simmons’s residence.
- While seated in a patrol car after arrest, Green told an ATF agent he had recently acquired the gun in a drugs‑for‑gun trade; months later he told the agent the gun was not his and he only owned a BB gun.
- Green was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (felon in possession); he stipulated he was a convicted felon, and the jury saw a redacted prior conviction introduced under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) that stemmed from a 2006 nolo plea for possession of ammunition.
- At trial Green moved for judgment of acquittal arguing insufficient proof of constructive possession; the motion was denied and he was convicted. The PSR recommended ACCA treatment based on four Florida convictions; the district court applied ACCA and sentenced Green to 262 months.
- On appeal Green challenged (1) denial of acquittal, (2) refusal to redact the plural “crimes” in the indictment, (3) admission of the 2006 nolo conviction under Rule 404(b), and (4) ACCA classification of prior batteries.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Sufficiency of evidence for constructive possession | Government: circumstantial evidence + confession established knowledge and ability to control the gun | Green: no actual possession; confession unreliable and uncorroborated | Affirmed: jury could infer knowledge and control; confession corroborated by surrounding facts |
| 2. Indictment wording — plural “crimes” | Government: no unfair prejudice; court may show multiple convictions to avoid misleading jury | Green: plural implies multiple prior felonies and is prejudicial when he stipulated to felon status | Court erred in refusing redaction but error was harmless given strong independent evidence |
| 3. Admission of 2006 nolo conviction under Rule 404(b) | Government: certified conviction suffices to prove prior act under Miller test | Green: nolo plea means conviction should not prove the underlying act for Rule 404(b); Rule 410/803(22) bar | Court: nolo conviction generally cannot be used under Rule 803(22) to prove the truth of the prior act; admission was error but harmless here given abundant independent proof |
| 4. ACCA predicate — are Florida battery convictions violent felonies? | Government: at least three predicates existed (aggravated assault, resisting officer, and a battery that qualifies under the elements/modified categorical approach) | Green: Florida felony batteries are not categorically violent felonies under ACCA elements clause | Affirmed: Shepard documents showed plea/factual basis for a §784.03 “struck” theory, qualifying as a violent felony under elements clause; ACCA enhancement stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (avoid unnecessary prejudice when defendant stipulates to prior conviction)
- Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (standard for sufficiency of proof for prior-act evidence under Rule 404(b))
- United States v. Miller, 959 F.2d 1535 (11th Cir. en banc) (three‑part test for admissibility of prior-bad-act evidence under Rule 404(b))
- United States v. Micieli, 594 F.2d 102 (5th Cir.) (a confession cannot alone sustain conviction; extrinsic corroboration required)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (use of charging documents/plea colloquy to determine which statutory alternative formed the basis of conviction)
- Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (elements clause analysis for what constitutes a violent felony under ACCA)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (modified categorical approach and divisible statutes)