The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently vacated the sentence of Friell Eugene Johnson, who was convicted of possessing a firearm as a convicted felon. The court found that the district court had incorrectly classified Johnson's prior conviction for attempted manslaughter as a "crime of violence." This decision is significant as it impacts Johnson's sentencing and clarifies the legal definitions surrounding firearm possession for felons.
On October 14, 2026, the Eleventh Circuit issued its ruling in the case United States v. Friell Johnson, docket number 21-14144. Johnson, who had been sentenced to 84 months in prison, challenged the legality of his sentence on multiple grounds, including the classification of his prior conviction and the nature of his current charges.
Background
Friell Eugene Johnson was indicted on March 18, 2021, for knowingly possessing a firearm as a felon, violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He pleaded guilty to the charge. The case stemmed from a prior conviction for attempted manslaughter under Florida law, which the district court classified as a "crime of violence" when determining Johnson's sentencing guidelines.
During the presentence investigation, the probation officer calculated Johnson's base offense level as 22, based on the assumption that his prior conviction qualified as a crime of violence. Johnson disputed this classification, arguing that attempted manslaughter should not be considered a crime of violence under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. He also requested that his federal sentence run concurrently with any potential state sentence he might receive.
The Ruling
The Eleventh Circuit, led by Judge Lagoa, ruled that the district court had erred in classifying Johnson's attempted manslaughter conviction as a crime of violence. The court stated, "Florida attempted manslaughter is not a crime of violence under the Sentencing Guidelines." This ruling was based on the finding that inchoate offenses, like attempted manslaughter, are not included in the definition of a crime of violence under the guidelines.
The court also noted that the district court's statement regarding the sentence being the same regardless of the classification error did not protect the sentence from being vacated. The ruling stated, "The district court's Keene statement is ineffective." As a result, the court vacated Johnson's sentence and remanded the case for resentencing without the erroneous enhancement.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for Johnson and potentially for other defendants with similar cases. It clarifies that prior convictions for attempted manslaughter do not automatically qualify as crimes of violence under federal sentencing guidelines, which could lead to reduced sentences for individuals in similar situations. The court's decision emphasizes the importance of accurate legal classifications in sentencing and the potential for appeals based on procedural errors.
Furthermore, the ruling reinforces the need for courts to carefully consider the definitions and classifications of prior convictions when determining sentencing guidelines. This could impact future cases involving firearm possession and the classification of prior offenses.
What's Next
Johnson's case will return to the district court for resentencing. The court's decision to vacate the sentence opens the door for a potentially lower sentence based on the corrected classification of his prior conviction. There are no indications in the court filing regarding any related cases pending or whether this decision will be appealed further.