In the 2006 case of Alphonso James, Jr. v. United States, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a prior conviction for simple battery under Florida law constituted a "violent felony" under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). The ACCA imposes mandatory minimum sentences on federal defendants who have three previous convictions for violent felonies or serious drug offenses. James had been convicted in Florida state court of simple battery and later pleaded guilty in federal court to being a felon in possession of a firearm. He argued that his earlier conviction should not be considered as one of his three strikes because it did not involve physical force against another person as required by ACCA's definition of "violent felony". However, the Supreme Court disagreed with him and held that attempted burglary is indeed a violent felony under ACCA even if no actual violence occurred during its commission.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Alphonso James, Jr. v. United States argued that the majority's interpretation of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) was too broad and inconsistent with Congress' intent when it enacted ACCA. The dissent contended that not all crimes involving physical force should be considered violent felonies under ACCA, especially if they do not involve a serious potential risk of injury to another person as required by law. They also disagreed with the majority's view on how courts should determine whether a crime is an ACCA predicate offense, arguing for a more categorical approach rather than examining each individual case facts or conduct involved in committing offenses. Furthermore, they expressed concerns about due process and fairness issues arising from retroactively applying broader interpretations to past convictions which could lead to harsher sentences without clear notice or understanding at time of plea agreements or trials.