Filed: Jan. 12, 2016
Latest Update: Jan. 12, 2016
Summary: PER CURIAM : Antone T. Adams was sentenced to 180 months in prison, the mandatory minimum sentence required by the Armed Career Criminal Act ("ACCA"), 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(1), after pleading guilty to possession of a firearm as a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). The district court sentenced Adams under the ACCA after finding that he had three prior convictions, two of which—third-degree fleeing or attempting to elude, in violation of Fla. Stat. 316.1935 1 —qualified as v
Summary: PER CURIAM : Antone T. Adams was sentenced to 180 months in prison, the mandatory minimum sentence required by the Armed Career Criminal Act ("ACCA"), 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(1), after pleading guilty to possession of a firearm as a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). The district court sentenced Adams under the ACCA after finding that he had three prior convictions, two of which—third-degree fleeing or attempting to elude, in violation of Fla. Stat. 316.1935 1 —qualified as vi..
More
PER CURIAM:
Antone T. Adams was sentenced to 180 months in prison, the mandatory minimum sentence required by the Armed Career Criminal Act ("ACCA"), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1), after pleading guilty to possession of a firearm as a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court sentenced Adams under the ACCA after finding that he had three prior convictions, two of which—third-degree fleeing or attempting to elude, in violation of Fla. Stat. § 316.19351—qualified as violent felonies under the residual clause of the ACCA. Adams objected, arguing that the residual clause was unconstitutionally vague. The district court overruled that objection and sentenced him as a career criminal based on the two convictions for fleeing or attempting to elude and another uncontested prior conviction.2
Adams appeals his sentence, raising again his argument that the residual clause of the ACCA is unconstitutionally vague and arguing that the district court erred in applying a sentencing enhancement under the ACCA. While Adams's appeal was pending, the Supreme Court invalidated the residual clause of the ACCA as unconstitutionally vague in Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. ___, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 2557-58,192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015). The government concedes that the residual clause of the ACCA is unconstitutional under Johnson.
After Johnson, Adams's convictions for fleeing or attempting to elude, under Fla. Stat. § 316.1935, can serve as predicate offenses only if they qualify as violent felonies under a different ACCA provision. But Fla. Stat. § 316.1935(1) and (2) do not have "as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another," are not "burglary, arson, or extortion," and do not involve the "use of explosives."3 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii). And the government concedes that after Johnson, Adams's convictions for fleeing or attempt-Ing to elude, under Fla. Stat. § 316.1935, are no longer ACCA-qualifying offenses and cannot form the basis for a sentencing enhancement under the ACCA. We agree.
We therefore conclude that the district court erred in sentencing Adams, based on his previous convictions for fleeing or attempting to elude, under the now-unconstitutional residual clause of the ACCA. He must be resentenced.
VACATED AND REMANDED.4
