United States v. Christopher Headbird
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 14573
8th Cir.2016Background
- Christopher Headbird pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm; at sentencing the district court counted two adult aggravated robbery convictions and a juvenile adjudication for Minnesota second-degree assault as three ACCA predicates.
- The district court sentenced Headbird to 235 months under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA).
- Headbird appealed, arguing his juvenile second-degree assault adjudication (Minn. Stat. § 609.222, subd. 1) did not qualify as an ACCA predicate.
- Minnesota second-degree assault punishes assault "with a dangerous weapon," where "assault" includes causing fear of immediate bodily harm or intentionally inflicting/attempting bodily harm.
- The key legal questions: (1) whether Minnesota second-degree assault is a "violent felony" under ACCA's force clause, and (2) whether a juvenile adjudication for that offense "involved the use or carrying of a firearm, knife, or destructive device" when the statute lists many types of "dangerous weapon."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Headbird) | Defendant's Argument (Gov't) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Minn. second-degree assault qualifies as an ACCA "violent felony" under the force clause | The statute may criminalize non-forceful conduct and thus not require the use/threatened use of physical force | The statute's "assault" definitions encompass force or threatened force and qualify under ACCA | Held: It is a violent felony; both "assault fear" and "assault harm" implicate the use/threatened use of physical force (court relied on Schaffer and Rice) |
| Whether a juvenile adjudication for assault "with a dangerous weapon" satisfies ACCA's juvenile requirement of involving a firearm, knife, or destructive device | The statute is indivisible as to the type of dangerous weapon, so the modified categorical approach cannot be used to identify a firearm; thus the juvenile adjudication does not necessarily involve a listed weapon | The government initially argued divisibility (so the court could identify the specific weapon used) but conceded post-Mathis that the statute is not divisible | Held: "With a dangerous weapon" is a single element and the statutorily enumerated list in § 609.02 are means (not separate elements); because the definition is broader than ACCA's listed weapons, the juvenile adjudication does not qualify as an ACCA predicate |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Schaffer, 818 F.3d 796 (8th Cir. 2016) (Minnesota language criminalizing acts to cause fear of immediate harm qualifies under ACCA force clause)
- United States v. Rice, 813 F.3d 704 (8th Cir. 2016) (rejecting argument that "bodily harm" can occur without violent force for ACCA purposes)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (distinguishes elements from means and restricts use of the modified categorical approach)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (categorical approach: only statutory elements matter for ACCA predicate analysis)
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013) (clarifies limits on using the modified categorical approach)