United States v. Byron Prince
772 F.3d 1173
9th Cir.2014Background
- Prince convicted as felon in possession of firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and sentenced to 15 years due to three prior violent felonies, including California attempted robbery.
- District court held California Penal Code § 211 attempted robbery qualifies as a violent felony under the ACCA.
- Prince did not object on the ACCA violent felony issue in district court; appeal raises plain‑error review.
- Court applies Chandler two‑step framework: first, assess the ordinary case risk of physical injury from the offense; second, compare the risk to enumerated ACCA offenses (burglary, extortion, etc.).
- California requires intent to commit robbery with an overt act toward its commission; attempted robbery is a specific‑intent crime, not strict liability, etc.
- Court concludes attempted robbery poses a serious risk of injury and is roughly similar to burglary and extortion, so it fits the ACCA residual clause as a violent felony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether California attempted robbery qualifies as a violent felony under the ACCA residual clause. | Prince argues the residual clause is not met by CA §211 due to non‑violent‑force elements. | U.S. contends the residual clause covers conduct presenting a serious potential risk of injury, and attempted robbery does so. | Yes; attempted robbery qualifies as a violent felony. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chandler v. United States, 743 F.3d 648 (9th Cir. 2014) (two‑step framework for residual clause applied to ACCA crime‑of‑violence analysis)
- James v. United States, 550 U.S. 192 (U.S. 2007) (risk of face‑to‑face confrontation informs analysis of burglary/extortion analogues)
- Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (U.S. 2008) (limits ACCA to purposeful, violent, and aggressive conduct for certain offenses)
- United States v. Wenner, 351 F.3d 969 (9th Cir. 2003) (attempt to commit a crime of violence can be a crime of violence under Guidelines)
- People v. Medina, 161 P.3d 187 (Cal. 2007) (defines attempted robbery as requiring intent and a direct act toward commission)
- People v. Memro, 700 P.2d 446 (Cal. 1985) (attempt must go so far as to accomplish the crime unless frustrated)
- People v. Hensley, 330 P.3d 296 (Cal. 2014) (illustrates serious risk concept in California robbery context)
- Scheidler v. N.O.W., 537 U.S. 393 (U.S. 2003) (extortion definition used for ACCA comparison)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (U.S. 1990) (definition of burglary for ACCA comparison)
- United States v. McDougherty, 920 F.2d 569 (9th Cir. 1990) (robbery generally presents serious risk of physical force)