Posts Tagged ‘violent felony’

Carrying a concealed firearm and escape are not properly considered violent felonies so as to trigger a sentence enhancement under ACCA.

Tuesday, August 11th, 2009

U.S. v. Canty, 570 F.3d 1251 (11th Cir. June 11, 2009)

The defendant was convicted of possessing counterfeit federal reserve notes and being a felon in possession of a firearm. The government argued to enhance his sentence under the ACCA (Armed Career Criminal Act). The defendant was sentenced, pursuant to ACCA, to 186 months in prison on each count, to be served concurrently. Case law dictated that carrying a concealed weapon could not be a crime of violence under the Guidelines and the court read the definition of violent felony under ACCA Section 924 to be virtually identical to the definition of crime of violence. Therefore, the defendant’s crimes were considered violent felonies or serious drug offenses to apply under the statute.

The government had the opportunity to offer evidence and seek rulings from the sentencing court, but failed to do so.

The government did not voice any objection to predicate the ACCA enhancements or offer whether the crimes were committed on occasions different from one another. Rather, the government adopted the PSR. Therefore, it was not entitled to a remand to present additional evidence and seek additional findings to support an enhancement when it failed to do so when the initial sentence was imposed.

Prior Florida conviction for fleeing found not a predicate violent felony for a sentencing enhancement under 924(e).

Monday, April 27th, 2009

U.S. v. HARRISON, 558 F.3d 1280 (11th Cir. 2009)

The issue was whether the district court erred in finding a conviction under Florida Statutes 316.1935(2), which is the willful fleeing statute, is a violent felony for the purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act 18 U.S.C., § 924(e). In a lengthy analysis of recent Supreme Court opinions Begay v. U.S., 128 S. Ct 1581 (2008) and Chambers v. U.S., 129 S. Ct 687 (2009) as well as the Florida statute, the court concluded that the conviction cannot support the § 924(e) enhancement.