United States v. Ronnie Junior Bostick
675 F. App'x 948
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Ronnie Junior Bostick pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and received a 180-month sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA).
- The ACCA enhancement was based on three prior convictions; Bostick challenged one predicate: a 2010 Florida strong-arm robbery conviction under Fla. Stat. § 812.13(1) / (2)(c).
- Florida robbery requires taking property from a person or custody with intent to deprive when "in the course of the taking" there is use of force, violence, assault, or putting in fear; § 812.13(2)(c) is a second-degree felony when no weapon is carried.
- The legal question was whether that Florida robbery conviction "categorically" qualifies as a "violent felony" under the ACCA elements clause (use/attempted use/threatened use of physical force).
- Eleventh Circuit precedent (Lockley) had held Florida robbery under § 812.13(1) categorically meets the elements-clause definition; the court treated later Eleventh Circuit decisions (Seabrooks, Fritts) as reaffirming Lockley.
- The panel applied Lockley, Seabrooks, and Fritts to conclude the Florida strong-arm robbery is an ACCA predicate; because two other predicates were unchallenged, the ACCA enhancement and sentence were affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Florida strong-arm robbery (§ 812.13(1)/(2)(c)) categorically qualifies as an ACCA "violent felony" under the elements clause | Bostick: Lockley is not controlling given more recent decisions; Lockley misapplied the standard for the "fear" prong and did not fully address the force prong | Government: Lockley remains binding Eleventh Circuit precedent; subsequent decisions reaffirm its holding | Court: Affirmed — Lockley, Seabrooks, and Fritts control; the conviction categorically qualifies as a violent felony under the ACCA |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Lockley, 632 F.3d 1238 (11th Cir. 2011) (Florida robbery § 812.13(1) categorically meets the elements clause for crimes of violence)
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (ACCA residual clause is unconstitutionally vague; elements clause remains valid)
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013) (restricts use of the categorical approach in certain conviction comparisons)
- United States v. Seabrooks, 839 F.3d 1326 (11th Cir. 2016) (applies and reaffirms Lockley for Florida armed robbery convictions)
- United States v. Fritts, 841 F.3d 937 (11th Cir. 2016) (reaffirms Lockley’s applicability to ACCA predicate analysis)