The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled that attempted crimes of violence qualify as crimes of violence under federal sentencing guidelines, affirming an enhanced sentence for a defendant with prior convictions. The court held in *United States v. Joseph Ott* that the U.S. Sentencing Commission's 2023 amendment definitively resolved a previously complex legal question.
The case centers on Joseph Lamonte Ott, who robbed a bank in Wellington, Florida, in January 2024. However, the legal issue stems from a 2010 incident in New Rochelle, New York, where Ott snatched a purse from an 81-year-old woman while she was feeding a parking meter. During that crime, he threw the elderly victim against a brick wall, causing bruising and pain to her right arm and hip.
Ott was charged with attempted second-degree robbery under New York law for the 2010 incident. The question before the Eleventh Circuit was whether this attempted crime could be classified as a "crime of violence" under the federal sentencing guidelines, which would enhance his sentence for the 2024 bank robbery.
Writing for the three-judge panel, Circuit Judge Grant explained that while this question "may have been difficult at one time," the Sentencing Commission provided clarity in 2023. The Commission amended the guidelines to explicitly define "crime of violence" as including any attempt to commit a crime of violence.
The court noted that Eleventh Circuit precedent already established that New York second-degree robbery constitutes a crime of violence. Given this existing precedent and the 2023 amendment, the court concluded that Ott's attempted second-degree robbery also qualified as a crime of violence.
"Because our precedent already establishes that New York second-degree robbery is a crime of violence, the defendant's attempt to commit that crime was also a crime of violence," the court wrote.
The 2023 Sentencing Commission amendment represents a significant development in federal criminal law. The amendment expanded the definition of crimes of violence to explicitly include attempts, resolving what had been an area of legal uncertainty. Prior to this amendment, courts across different circuits had reached varying conclusions about whether attempted violent crimes should count for sentencing enhancement purposes.
The implications of this ruling extend beyond Ott's case. Federal defendants with prior convictions for attempted violent crimes may now face enhanced sentences under the career offender provisions of the sentencing guidelines. The decision provides clarity for district courts in the Eleventh Circuit, which covers Florida, Georgia, and Alabama.
The case demonstrates how sentencing guidelines continue to evolve through amendments by the U.S. Sentencing Commission. The Commission, established by Congress in 1984, regularly reviews and updates the guidelines to address gaps, inconsistencies, and emerging issues in federal sentencing.
Ott's case also illustrates the long-term consequences of criminal convictions. The 2010 attempted robbery conviction in New York directly impacted his sentencing for the unrelated 2024 bank robbery in Florida, demonstrating how prior convictions can follow defendants across state lines and decades.
The Eleventh Circuit's decision was issued for publication, meaning it establishes binding precedent within the circuit. The published nature of the opinion signals that the court viewed the issue as having broader significance beyond the individual case.
The three-judge panel included Circuit Judges Grant, Lagoa, and Wilson. The case was decided on the non-argument calendar, indicating that the court determined oral arguments were not necessary to resolve the legal issues presented.
For defense attorneys, the ruling emphasizes the importance of understanding how prior convictions may be classified under federal sentencing guidelines. The decision also highlights how amendments to the guidelines can retroactively clarify previously ambiguous areas of law.
The case originated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, where Ott was initially sentenced for the bank robbery. The district court's sentence was affirmed on appeal, meaning Ott's enhanced sentence based on his prior attempted robbery conviction will stand.
This decision adds to the body of case law interpreting the scope of "crimes of violence" under federal sentencing guidelines. As the guidelines continue to evolve through amendments and judicial interpretation, cases like *Ott* provide important guidance for courts, attorneys, and defendants navigating the federal criminal justice system.
The ruling demonstrates how the Sentencing Commission's amendments can provide definitive answers to complex legal questions, reducing uncertainty and promoting consistency in federal sentencing practices across different jurisdictions.