By: Derek Hawkins//May 31, 2016//
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Case Name: United States of America v. Clinton W. Waters
Case No.: 15-2728
Officials: FLAUM, MANION, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Focus: Career Offender Classification
Appellant fails to provide persuasive reason to overturn precedent related to use of physical force as an element of the offense.
“Importantly, no intervening Supreme Court decision justifies a different result. We have already determined that the Supreme Court’s opinion in Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (2010), does not compel a different understanding of the Illinois domestic battery statute. See De Leon Castellanos, 652 F.3d at 766. Johnson holds that a Florida statute defining battery as “actually and intentionally” touching a person against their will does not have as an element the use of physical force because the battery could be based on “any intentional physical contact, no matter how slight.” 559 U.S. at 138 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). In De Leon Castellanos, we distinguished the Florida statute at issue in Johnson because the force necessary to violate the Illinois statute exceeded that of the Florida standard. 652 F.3d 765–66. As explained by the Supreme Court of Illinois, the bodily harm element of the Illinois statute necessitates “some sort of physical pain or damage to the body, like lacerations, bruises or abrasions, whether temporary or permanent … .” People v. Mays, 437 N.E.2d 633, 635–36 (Ill. 1982).”
Affirmed