United States v. David Geozos
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 16515
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Geozos was convicted in 2007 of being a felon in possession of a firearm; the district court applied the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) enhancement and imposed the 15-year mandatory minimum. The sentencing court found five prior convictions qualified as "violent felonies," but did not specify which ACCA clause(s) (force clause or residual clause) it relied on.
- Relevant priors listed in the PSR included two Florida armed robberies, one Florida robbery, one Florida firearm-in-commission felony, and an Alaska third-degree assault; the government conceded a Florida cocaine possession prior was not a serious drug offense.
- After direct appeal and an initial § 2255 denial, the Supreme Court decided Johnson v. United States (Johnson II), invalidating ACCA’s residual clause, and Welch held that Johnson II is retroactive to collateral review.
- Geozos obtained permission to file a second § 2255 motion arguing his ACCA enhancement may have rested on the now-invalid residual clause and that at least three of his priors do not qualify under the valid force or enumerated clauses.
- The Ninth Circuit considered (1) whether his second § 2255 motion "relies on" Johnson II (to overcome the second-or-successive bar), and (2) whether any Johnson II error was harmless because at least three priors still qualified under valid ACCA provisions.
Issues
| Issue | Geozos’ Argument | Government’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a second § 2255 motion "relies on" Johnson II when the sentencing court didn’t specify which ACCA clause it used | Geozos: Unclear reliance means his claim depends on Johnson II; like a general verdict that may rest on an unconstitutional theory | Gov: Absent explicit reliance on the residual clause, the second-or-successive bar should apply | Held: When the record is unclear and the court may have relied on the residual clause, the claim “relies on” Johnson II and may proceed under § 2255(h)(2) |
| Whether the Johnson II error at sentencing was harmless because other priors still qualify under a valid clause | Geozos: Florida robbery and related convictions do not categorically satisfy the force clause, so error isn’t harmless | Gov: At least three priors (Florida robbery/armed robbery) qualify under the force clause so enhancement stands | Held: Not harmless — Florida robbery (and related offenses as charged) are not categorically violent felonies under the force clause |
| Proper analytical framework for harmlessness — which law to apply (law at sentencing vs. current law) | Geozos: Harmlessness should be judged under current substantive law interpreting the force clause (including Johnson I) | Gov: (Implicit) use of law at sentencing might support harmlessness | Held: Use current substantive law (including Johnson I); retroactive judicial interpretations apply when assessing whether a predicate now qualifies |
| Whether Florida robbery, armed robbery, and § 790.07(2) convictions categorically satisfy ACCA’s force clause | Geozos: Florida robbery allows minimal/non-violent force (tug-of-war, snatch with slight resistance), so it fails the Johnson I violent-force test | Gov: Eleventh Circuit precedent treats Florida robbery as a violent felony under the force clause | Held: Under the categorical approach and controlling Ninth Circuit precedent, Florida robbery (and the related convictions) do not categorically involve "violent force," so they are not ACCA predicates |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015) (invalidated ACCA’s residual clause as void for vagueness)
- Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016) (held Johnson II is retroactive to cases on collateral review)
- Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (2010) (interpreted "physical force" in the force clause to mean "violent force")
- Griffin v. United States, 502 U.S. 46 (1991) (general-verdict principle: conviction may be invalid if it may have rested on unconstitutional ground)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (facts that increase penalty are ingredients of an offense and critical to sentencing determinations)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (ACCA predicate determinations are findings based on the sentencing record)
- United States v. Parnell, 818 F.3d 974 (9th Cir. 2016) (applied categorical approach to force-clause analysis)
- United States v. Strickland, 860 F.3d 1224 (9th Cir. 2017) (explained use of state caselaw and least-acts principle in categorical analysis)