39 F.4th 342
6th Cir.2022Background
- Tyler Williams pled guilty in 2020 to methamphetamine distribution and being a felon in possession of a firearm but reserved the right to challenge ACCA designation at sentencing.
- The district court designated him an armed career criminal based on four prior Kentucky robbery convictions (one first-degree, three second-degree) from 2004, committed with two co-defendants on four separate dates (Jan. 15, Jan. 23, Jan. 29, Mar. 13).
- Williams was prosecuted as an adult for the 2004 robberies; the four charges were in a single indictment but involved different stores/dates.
- Williams argued on appeal that Kentucky second-degree robbery is not a violent felony under the ACCA (elements and mens rea problems) and that his prior robberies were not "occasions different from one another."
- The district court overruled objections, applied the ACCA, produced a guidelines range of 188–235 months, and sentenced Williams to 200 months concurrent; the Sixth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Williams) | Defendant's Argument (United States) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kentucky second-degree robbery (KRS § 515.030) is a violent felony under the ACCA elements clause | § 515.030 criminalizes de minimis force and lacks the required mens rea (force can be reckless), so it does not meet the "physical force"/intent standards | Kentucky robbery requires force sufficient to overcome a victim's will and the specific intent to accomplish theft, satisfying Johnson/Stokeling and Borden limits | The court held § 515.030 is a violent felony: the statute requires force sufficient to overcome resistance (Stokeling standard) and requires specific intent to commit theft (Borden not implicated) |
| Whether Williams’ four robbery convictions were "committed on occasions different from one another" under the ACCA | The convictions were charged in a single indictment and involved the same participants, so they are not separate occasions | The robberies occurred on different dates and at different locations, weighing in favor of separate occasions | Applying Wooden's multi-factor test (time, place, character), the court held the robberies occurred on separate occasions |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (defines "physical force" as "violent force" capable of causing pain or injury)
- Stokeling v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 544 (elements clause covers robbery that overcomes a victim’s resistance)
- Borden v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 1817 (offenses punishable based on recklessness do not qualify under ACCA)
- Wooden v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 1063 (multi-factor test for whether prior offenses occurred on separate occasions)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (framework for what sentencing facts must be decided by a jury; used to note precedent permitting judge to resolve whether prior offenses were separate)
- Hobson v. Commonwealth, 306 S.W.3d 478 (Ky. 2010) (Kentucky requires force to be contemporaneous with intent to accomplish theft)
- Slaven v. Commonwealth, 962 S.W.2d 845 (Ky. 1997) (robbery elements: use of physical force plus intent to commit theft; absence of intent converts charge to wanton endangerment)