United States v. Charles Lynch Pettis
888 F.3d 962
8th Cir.2018Background
- Charles Pettis pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Government sought an Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) enhancement under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) based on six Minnesota convictions: three simple robberies, two aggravated robberies, and one second-degree burglary.
- The district court found only one aggravated-robbery conviction qualified as a violent felony and concluded Pettis did not have the three required ACCA predicates; it sentenced him to the 10-year statutory maximum (120 months) and noted it would have imposed a longer sentence (192 months) if ACCA applied.
- The Government appealed, ultimately conceding the burglary conviction could not count under McArthur, so the appeal turned on whether Minnesota simple robbery qualifies as a "violent felony" under the ACCA force clause.
- The legal question was analyzed under the categorical approach: whether the elements of Minnesota’s simple-robbery statute necessarily require the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force capable of causing pain or injury (Johnson force).
- The court considered prior Eighth Circuit precedents (Libby and Swopes) and Minnesota case law (including Nelson and Burwell) and concluded that Minnesota simple robbery requires force sufficient to overcome resistance and thus meets the Johnson standard.
- Because Pettis has three simple-robbery convictions that qualify as violent felonies, the court vacated his sentence and remanded for resentencing under the ACCA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Minnesota simple robbery qualifies as a "violent felony" under the ACCA force clause | Government: statute requires threatened or actual force sufficient to overcome resistance and thus meets Johnson | Pettis: statute permits convictions on "mere force" or minimal touching that falls below Johnson's threshold | Held: Minnesota simple robbery requires force capable of causing pain or injury and qualifies as a violent felony |
| Whether state caselaw supports a realistic probability of nonviolent convictions under § 609.24 | Government: Minnesota decisions (e.g., Nelson) involve jostling/pulling that constitute violent force | Pettis: cites Burwell, Duluth civil decision, and other authority to show minimal force convictions are possible | Held: Minnesota case law shows force is more than de minimis; no realistic probability of nonviolent convictions identified |
| Applicability of other circuits'/states' robbery decisions (e.g., Arkansas, Missouri) | Government: Missouri and Minnesota statutes are similar; Swopes supports finding violent force | Pettis: relies on Eason (Arkansas) and Bell (Missouri earlier panel) to argue nonviolent force suffices | Held: Eason/Bell do not control; Swopes and statutory distinctions point toward violent force requirement |
| Whether ACCA enhancement should be applied given remaining predicates | Government: with three qualifying simple-robbery convictions, ACCA applies | Pettis: argues none of the simple-robbery convictions qualify, so ACCA does not apply | Held: Pettis has three qualifying predicates; ACCA enhancement applies; vacated and remanded for resentencing under ACCA |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (2010) (defines "physical force" under ACCA as force capable of causing pain or injury)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (establishes categorical approach for ACCA predicate analysis)
- Moncrieffe v. Holder, 569 U.S. 184 (2013) (requiring a realistic probability, not mere possibility, of nonqualifying convictions)
- United States v. Swopes, 886 F.3d 668 (8th Cir. en banc 2018) (clarifies analysis of state caselaw and focuses on force capable of causing pain)
- United States v. Libby, 880 F.3d 1011 (8th Cir. 2018) (held Minnesota simple robbery requires threatened violent force)
- United States v. Eason, 829 F.3d 633 (8th Cir. 2016) (interpreted Arkansas statute as not requiring Johnson-level force)
- United States v. Bell, 840 F.3d 963 (8th Cir. 2016) (examined Missouri robbery statute; later clarified by Swopes)
- United States v. Jennings, 860 F.3d 450 (7th Cir. 2017) (discusses minimum force in robbery decisions and relevance of Duluth civil case)
- United States v. McArthur, 850 F.3d 925 (8th Cir. 2017) (foreclosed classifying Pettis’s burglary conviction as ACCA predicate)