936 F.3d 914
9th Cir.2019Background
- Joshua Ward, convicted in 2012 of unlawful possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)), received a 15-year mandatory minimum under the ACCA based on prior-state convictions.
- Ward challenged his ACCA designation in a § 2255 motion after the Supreme Court invalidated the ACCA residual clause in Johnson (2015).
- The district court conceded Ward’s burglary convictions were not ACCA predicates but ruled that his Minnesota convictions for aiding and abetting simple robbery, second-degree assault, and aggravated assault still qualified.
- Ward appealed only the question whether Minnesota simple robbery (aiding and abetting) qualifies as a “violent felony” under the ACCA force (elements) clause.
- Minnesota simple robbery criminalizes taking property by using or threatening imminent force to overcome or compel a victim’s resistance or acquiescence.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding Minnesota simple robbery fits within the ACCA force clause under the Supreme Court’s decision in Stokeling v. United States.
Issues
| Issue | Ward's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Minnesota simple robbery categorically involves "physical force" under the ACCA force clause | Minnesota simple robbery may encompass only minimal or non-violent force and thus does not meet ACCA's "violent force" requirement | Minnesota simple robbery requires the use/threat of force to overcome resistance, matching the force clause as interpreted in Stokeling | Affirmed: Minnesota simple robbery qualifies as an ACCA violent felony because it criminalizes force sufficient to overcome a victim's resistance |
Key Cases Cited
- Stokeling v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 544 (2019) (force includes amount necessary to overcome a victim’s resistance)
- Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (2010) ("physical force" means violent force)
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (ACCA residual clause void for vagueness)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (categorical approach for predicate-offense analysis)
- Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889 (9th Cir. 2003) (panel must follow intervening higher authority and reject prior circuit precedent when irreconcilable)