Shelton v. Secretary, Department of Corrections

United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida · 2011 · Criminal Law

Criminal LawHabeas CorpusDue ProcessMens ReaStrict Liability28 U.S.C. § 2254Fla. Stat. § 893.13Fla. Stat. § 893.101

Facts

Shelton was convicted in Florida of delivery of cocaine and sentenced as a habitual felony offender to eighteen years' imprisonment. Because his conviction came after the 2002 enactment of Fla. Stat. § 893.101, the jury was instructed that the State needed to prove only that he delivered a substance and that the substance was cocaine; the jury was not required to find any knowledge or intent. Florida's statutory scheme expressly provided that knowledge of the illicit nature of a controlled substance is not an element of any Chapter 893 offense and made lack of such knowledge an affirmative defense. Shelton argued in federal habeas that this statutory elimination of mens rea rendered § 893.13 facially unconstitutional.

Issue

Whether Fla. Stat. § 893.13, as amended by Fla. Stat. § 893.101 to eliminate mens rea as an element of the drug offense of delivery of cocaine and to make lack of knowledge an affirmative defense, facially violates the Due Process Clause. Also, whether Shelton was entitled to § 2254 relief on that basis.

Rule

Due process permits strict-liability crimes only within narrow limits. Under the framework applied from Supreme Court precedent, a strict-liability offense is constitutionally suspect and invalid when it imposes severe penalties, results in substantial stigma, and regulates conduct that is not inherently dangerous or not inherently likely to be regulated; a state may not avoid these limits by redefining mens rea as an affirmative defense and shifting the burden to the defendant.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nevada enacts a statute making it a felony punishable by up to 20 years in prison to transfer any parcel that in fact contains a listed controlled substance. The statute expressly states that knowledge of the parcel's contents is not an element, but allows a defendant to raise lack of knowledge as an affirmative defense. In Reno, Jordan Pike hands a sealed box to a courier for delivery and is prosecuted after the box is found to contain methamphetamine.

Under the district court's due process analysis, which is the strongest argument that the statute is facially unconstitutional?

Explanation. The opinion held that due process permits strict liability only in narrow circumstances. A felony offense is constitutionally suspect when it imposes harsh penalties, carries substantial stigma, and criminalizes otherwise innocuous conduct without requiring mens rea. The court also rejected the idea that a legislature can save such a statute by making lack of knowledge an affirmative defense and shifting the burden to the defendant.