Opinion ID: 4200163
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Curtis Johnson

Text: As the basis for his challenge, Vail-Bailon argues that Florida felony battery does not require the use of “physical force.” And because a statute must proscribe the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force before it can be said to constitute a crime of violence, Vail-Bailon contends that his felony-battery conviction therefore does not qualify. In Curtis Johnson v. United States, the Supreme Court defined “physical force” for purposes of the elements clause to mean “violent force—that is, force capable of causing physical pain or injury to another person.” Curtis Johnson, 559 U.S. at 140 (underlined emphasis added). However, in contrast with this case, which involves a felony battery conviction under Florida Statute § 784.041,7 Curtis Johnson examined whether a conviction for simple battery under Florida Statute § 784.03 satisfied the elements clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i).8 Id. at 136. The Florida simple battery statute is violated when a defendant “[a]ctually and intentionally touches or strikes 7 As set out infra, Florida felony battery under § 784.041 requires as an element of the offense that the defendant’s battery cause great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to the victim. 8 The elements clause of the ACCA is identical to the elements clause of § 2L1.2. Cases construing the ACCA’s elements clause are thus relevant to our inquiry here. See United States v. Romo-Villalobos, 674 F.3d 1246, 1248 (11th Cir. 2012) (noting that “cases dealing with the elements clauses of the ACCA and the career offender guidelines” are instructive in a case involving the elements clause of § 2L1.2). 7 Case: 15-10351 Date Filed: 08/25/2017 Page: 8 of 67 another person against the will of the other.” 9 Fla. Stat. § 784.03(1)(a)(1). As interpreted by the Florida Supreme Court, actual and intentional touching—the only element necessary to support a conviction for simple battery—is satisfied by any physical contact, “no matter how slight.” State v. Hearns, 961 So. 2d 211, 218–19 (Fla. 2007) (explaining that simple battery “may be committed with only nominal contact”). For example, even a slight but unwanted tap on the shoulder suffices for a conviction under the simple battery statute. See id. at 219. That being so, the Supreme Court concluded in Curtis Johnson that simple battery, as defined by Florida Statute § 784.03, does not require the use of force capable of causing physical pain or injury and thus does not categorically satisfy the elements clause. See Curtis Johnson, 559 U.S. at 145.