Stokeling v. United States

• Decision Date: 15 January 2019
• Docket Number: No. 17–5554.,17–5554.
• Citation: Stokeling v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 544, 202 L.Ed.2d 512 (2019)
• Parties: Denard STOKELING, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES.
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

139 S.Ct. 544

202 L.Ed.2d 512

Denard STOKELING, Petitioner

v.UNITED STATES.

No. 17–5554.

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued Oct. 9, 2018.

Decided Jan. 15, 2019.

Brenda G. Bryn, Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Petitioner.

Frederick Liu, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Amir H. Ali, Roderick & Solange, MacArthur Justice Center, Washington, DC, Michael Caruso, Federal Public Defender, Brenda G. Bryn, Andrew L. Adler, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Petitioner.

Noel J. Francisco, Solicitor General, Brian A. Benczkowski, Assistant Attorney General, Eric J. Feigin, Frederick Liu, Assistants to the Solicitor General, John M. Pellettieri, Attorney, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Justice THOMASdelivered the opinion of the Court.

This case requires us to decide whether a robbery offense that has as an element the use of force sufficient to overcome a victim's resistance necessitates the use of "physical force" within the meaning of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i).We conclude that it does.

I

In the early hours of July 27, 2015, two people burgled the Tongue & Cheek restaurant in Miami Beach, Florida.Petitioner Denard Stokeling was an employee of the restaurant, and the Miami Beach Police identified him as a suspect based on surveillance video from the burglary and witness statements.After conducting a criminal background check, police learned that Stokeling had previously been convicted of three felonies—home invasion, kidnaping, and robbery.When confronted, Stokeling admitted that he had a gun in his backpack.The detectives opened the backpack and discovered a 9–mm semiautomatic firearm, a magazine, and 12 rounds of ammunition.

Stokeling pleaded guilty in federal court to possessing a firearm and ammunition after having been convicted of a felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).The probation office recommended that Stokeling be sentenced as an armed career criminal under ACCA, which provides that a person who violates § 922(g) and who has three previous convictions for a "violent felony" shall be imprisoned for a minimum of 15 years.§ 924(e).ACCA defines "violent felony" as "any crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year" that

"(i) has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another; or

"(ii) is burglary, arson, or extortion, involves use of explosives, or otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another."§ 924(e)(2)(B).

As relevant here, Stokeling objected that his 1997 Florida robbery conviction was not a predicate offense under ACCA.This conviction, he argued, did not qualify under the first clause—the "elements clause"—because Florida robbery does not have "as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force."^*

Under Florida law, robbery is defined as "the taking of money or other property ... from the person or custody of another, ... when in the course of the taking there is the use of force, violence, assault, or putting in fear."Fla. Stat. § 812.13(1)(1995).The Florida Supreme Court has explained that the "use of force" necessary to commit robbery requires "resistance by the victim that is overcome by the physical force of the offender."Robinson v. State,692 So.2d 883, 886(1997).

Instead of applying a categorical approach to the elements clause, the District Court evaluated whether the facts of Stokeling's robbery conviction were serious enough to warrant an enhancement.The court concluded that, although Stokeling " ‘grabbed [the victim] by the neck and tried to remove her necklaces' " as she" ‘held onto’ " them, his actions did not "justify an enhancement."Sentencing Hearing in 15–cv–20815(SD Fla.), Doc. 45, pp. 10–11.The court then sentenced Stokeling to less than half of the mandatory minimum 15–year term of imprisonment provided by ACCA.

The Eleventh Circuit reversed.684 Fed.Appx. 870(2017).It held that the District Court erred in making its own factual determination about the level of violence involved in Stokeling's particular robbery offense.Id., at 871.The court also rejected Stokeling's argument that Florida robbery does not categorically require sufficient force to constitute a violent felony under ACCA's elements clause.Id., at 871–872.

We granted certiorari to address whether the "force" required to commit robbery under Florida law qualifies as "physical force" for purposes of the elements clause.584 U.S. ––––, 138 S.Ct. 1438, 200 L.Ed.2d 716(2018).We now affirm.

II

Construing the language of the elements clause in light of the history of ACCA and our opinion in Johnson v. United States,559 U.S. 133, 130 S.Ct. 1265, 176 L.Ed.2d 1(2010), we conclude that the elements clause encompasses robbery offenses that require the criminal to overcome the victim's resistance.

A

As originally enacted, ACCA prescribed a 15–year minimum sentence for any person who received, possessed, or transported a firearm following three prior convictions "for robbery or burglary."18 U.S.C. App. § 1202(a)(1982 ed., Supp. II).Robbery was defined in relevant part as "any felony consisting of the taking of the property of another from the person or presence of another by force or violence ."§ 1202(c)(8)(1982 ed., Supp. II)(emphasis added).

The statute's definition mirrored the elements of the common-law crime of robbery, which has long required force or violence.At common law, an unlawful taking was merely larceny unless the crime involved "violence."2 J. Bishop, Criminal Law§ 1156, p. 860(J. Zane & C. Zollman eds., 9th ed. 1923).And "violence" was "committed if sufficient force [was] exerted to overcome the resistance encountered."Id., at 861.

A few examples illustrate the point.Under the common law, it was robbery "to seize another's watch or purse, and use sufficient force to break a chain or guard by which it is attached to his person, or to run against another, or rudely push him about, for the purpose of diverting his attention and robbing him."W. Clark & W. Marshall, Law of Crimes 554 (H. Lazelled., 2d ed. 1905)(Clark & Marshall)(footnotes omitted).Similarly, it was robbery to pull a diamond pin out of a woman's hair when doing so tore away hair attached to the pin.See 2 W. Russell, Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 68 (2d ed. 1828).But the crime was larceny, not robbery, if the thief did not have to overcome such resistance.

In fact, common-law authorities frequently used the terms "violence" and "force" interchangeably.Seeibid.(concluding that "if any injury be done to the person, or there be any struggle by the party to keep possession of the property before it be taken from him, there will be a sufficient actual ‘violence’ " to establish robbery); Clark & Marshall 553 ("Sufficient force must be used to overcome resistance....If there is any injury to the person of the owner, or if he resists the attempt to rob him, and his resistance is overcome, there is sufficient violence to make the taking robbery, however slight the resistance"(emphasis added)).The common law also did not distinguish between gradations of "violence."If an act physically overcame a victim's resistance, "however slight" that resistance might be, it necessarily constituted violence.Ibid.; 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 242 (1769)(distinguishing "taking ... by force" from "privately stealing," and stating that the use of this "violence" differentiates robbery from other larcenies);see also3 id., at 120(explaining, in the battery context, that "the law cannot draw the line between different degrees of violence, and therefore totally prohibits the first and lowest stage of it").

The overlap between "force" and "violence" at common law is reflected in modern legal and colloquial usage of these terms."Force" means "[p]ower, violence, or pressure directed against a person or thing," Black's Law Dictionary 656 (7th ed. 1999), or "unlawful violence threatened or committed against persons or property," Random House Dictionary of the English Language 748 (2d ed. 1987).Likewise, "violence" implies force, including an "unjust or unwarranted use of force."Black's Law Dictionary, at 1564;accord, Random House Dictionary, at 2124("rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment," or "an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws").

Against this background, Congress, in the original ACCA, defined robbery as requiring the use of "force or violence"—a clear reference to the common law of robbery.SeeSamantar v. Yousuf,560 U.S. 305, 320, n. 13, 130 S.Ct. 2278, 176 L.Ed.2d 1047(2010)("Congress‘is understood to legislate against a background of common-law ... principles' ").And the level of "force" or "violence" needed at common law was by this time well established: "Sufficient force must be used to overcome resistance ... however slight the resistance."Clark & Marshall 553.

In 1986, Congress amended the relevant provisions of ACCA to their current form.The amendment was titled Expansion of Predicate Offenses for Armed Career Criminal Penalties.SeeCareer Criminals Amendment Act of 1986, § 1402, 100 Stat. 3207 –39.This amendment replaced the two enumerated crimes of "robbery or burglary" with the current elements clause, a new enumerated-offenses list, and a (now-defunct) residual clause.SeeJohnson v. United States,576 U.S. ––––, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569(2015).In the new statute, robbery was no longer enumerated as a predicate offense.But the newly created elements clause extended ACCA to cover any offense that has as an element "the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force ."18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i)(2012 ed.)(emphasis added).

" ‘[I]f a word is obviously transplanted from another legal source, whether the common law or other legislation, it...