United States v. Samuel J. Johnson
681 F. App'x 735
11th Cir.2017Background
- Samuel Johnson pled guilty to federal counts: production and receipt of child pornography, transfer of obscene matter to a minor, and penalties for registered sex offenders; sentencing was enhanced under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251(e) and 2252A(b)(1).
- The plea agreement warned mandatory minimums could increase if a prior Florida conviction for lewd and lascivious molestation (Fla. Stat. § 800.04 (2002)) qualified as a predicate for the federal enhancements.
- At plea hearing the court stated it would determine at sentencing whether the prior Florida conviction triggered the enhancements; Johnson acknowledged understanding and pleaded guilty.
- The PSR recommended enhancements under §§ 2251(e) and 2252A(b)(1); Johnson objected, arguing the Shepard record did not support that his Florida conviction qualified.
- At sentencing the court rejected Johnson’s objection, relying on Eleventh Circuit precedent and the statutory language, and imposed a total 480-month sentence; Johnson appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 11 required the court to inform Johnson that a jury, not the judge, would have to find that his prior conviction qualified for the statutory enhancements if he went to trial | Johnson: The court failed to advise that qualification of the prior conviction is a jury question and thus his plea was not knowing and voluntary | Government: The question whether a prior conviction qualifies under the enhancement is a legal determination for the judge; only the fact of conviction (if used to increase sentence) need not be submitted to a jury | Held: No error. Court may decide whether a prior conviction qualifies as a matter of law; no Rule 11 plain error in not so advising Johnson. |
| Whether the Florida § 800.04(5) conviction (lewd/lascivious touching over clothing, with consent/misrepresentation, good-faith belief defense barred) qualifies under the categorical approach as a predicate for §§ 2251(e) and 2252A(b)(1) enhancements | Johnson: The Florida statute criminalizes broader, less culpable conduct (touching over clothing, consensual, reasonable belief defenses) and thus does not necessarily "relate to" abusive sexual contact/conduct for enhancement | Government: Under categorical approach and Eleventh Circuit precedent, the Florida statute’s least culpable conduct falls within the generic meanings of the listed offenses | Held: Affirmed. Court did not plainly err in applying the enhancements; given absence of controlling precedent at sentencing, enhancement was permissible. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012 (11th Cir. 2005) (plain-error and Rule 11 review principles)
- United States v. Gibson, 434 F.3d 1234 (11th Cir. 2006) (judge may decide whether a prior conviction qualifies for enhancement)
- Moncrieffe v. Holder, 569 U.S. 184 (2013) ("least culpable conduct" presumption under the categorical approach)
- Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013) (categorical approach and comparison to generic offenses)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (framework for comparing state offense elements to generic federal predicates)
- United States v. Ramirez-Garcia, 646 F.3d 778 (11th Cir. 2011) (defining non-traditional generic offenses by ordinary meaning)
- United States v. Mathis, 767 F.3d 1264 (11th Cir. 2014) (interpretation of § 2251(e) predicates)
- United States v. Osborne, 551 F.3d 718 (7th Cir. 2008) (alternative approach: define predicates by reference to Chapter 109A definitions)