Sarasota Criminal Attorney Blog
In federal sentencing, defendants with certain prior felony convictions face enhanced penalties under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. When a defendant qualifies as a “career offender,” the resulting guideline range can substantially increase. Whether a prior offense qualifies as a predicate “crime of violence” is a critical legal issue that may shape a defendant’s sentence. Recently, a Florida court addressed this question in the context of a Florida statute criminalizing the act of resisting an officer with violence. If you are charged with a serious federal offense and have prior convictions, a knowledgeable Sarasota criminal defense attorney can help you evaluate whether enhancements may apply and advocate for a fair sentence.
Factual and Procedural Background
It is reported that the defendant was convicted in federal court of carjacking in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2119(1) and sentenced to 144 months in prison. At sentencing, the district court applied the “career offender” enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, citing the defendant’s two prior convictions for crimes of violence. One of those convictions was for resisting an officer with violence under Florida Statutes § 843.01.
Allegedly, the defendant appealed the sentence, arguing that his prior Florida conviction did not qualify as a crime of violence under the sentencing guidelines. He asserted that the statute could be violated in ways that do not necessarily involve the use of violent physical force. The defendant contended that because the offense might be committed with a reckless mental state, it should not qualify under the “elements clause” of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2, which requires the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against another person.
It is further reported that the defendant urged the appellate court to reconsider prior Eleventh Circuit precedent upholding the categorization of resisting with violence as a crime of violence. He also pointed to a recent United States Supreme Court decision, Borden v. United States, which held that offenses involving a mens rea of recklessness do not meet the definition of “violent felonies” under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). The defendant argued that this reasoning undermined the circuit’s earlier rulings.
Crimes of Violence in Federal Court
On appeal, the court affirmed the district court’s sentence. The court began its analysis by reiterating that it reviews de novo whether a prior conviction qualifies as a crime of violence under the guidelines. The court applied the “categorical approach,” which examines only the elements of the statute rather than the facts of the specific case.
Under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2, a “crime of violence” includes any felony offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against another person. The court found that the Florida statute at issue meets this definition because it requires the use of violence against a law enforcement officer engaged in official duties. Florida courts have interpreted the statute as including violence as a necessary element, and previous decisions, such as United States v. Joyner and United States v. Hill, have upheld this conclusion.
The court also rejected the defendant’s reliance on Borden, explaining that the prior Florida statute does not encompass reckless conduct, but instead requires purposeful or knowing acts of violence. The court noted that it is bound by its own precedent under the “prior panel precedent rule,” which mandates adherence to earlier rulings unless they are directly overruled by the Supreme Court or an en banc Eleventh Circuit decision. Because Borden did not specifically address the Florida statute or directly conflict with the circuit’s prior decisions, the panel concluded that its precedent remained controlling.
Accordingly, the court held that the defendant’s prior conviction for resisting an officer with violence categorically qualifies as a predicate offense for career offender purposes. The sentence enhancement was affirmed.
Speak to a Sarasota Criminal Defense Attorney About Your Case
Federal sentencing enhancements can result in significantly increased penalties, especially when prior convictions are classified as crimes of violence. Whether a prior offense qualifies can involve complex legal analysis and recent developments in case law. If you are facing federal charges or appealing a federal sentence, the seasoned Sarasota criminal defense attorneys at Hanlon Law can help you navigate these issues and protect your rights. Call our office today at (941) 462-1789 or contact us online to schedule a confidential consultation.