United States v. Eddie Strickland, Jr.
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 11291
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Eddie Ray Strickland pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and received the ACCA mandatory minimum (15 years) based on three prior violent-felony convictions.
- The district court treated Strickland’s Oregon third-degree robbery conviction as an ACCA predicate under the residual clause.
- After sentencing, the Supreme Court in Johnson held the ACCA residual clause unconstitutional, eliminating that basis for enhancement.
- The government argued the Oregon third-degree robbery conviction nonetheless qualifies under the ACCA force clause (use/threatened use of physical force).
- The Ninth Circuit applied the categorical approach, comparing Oregon’s statute and state court interpretations to the ACCA’s ‘‘physical force’’ (violent force) requirement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Oregon third-degree robbery is a violent felony under ACCA’s force clause | Government: Oregon statute requires "physical force" and thus meets ACCA force-clause (violent force) | Strickland: Oregon statute permits non-violent or minimal force (snatching/pulling), so it doesn’t meet ACCA’s "violent force" requirement | The statute does not match the ACCA force-clause; conviction is not an ACCA predicate |
| Whether Oregon case law requires violent force for third-degree robbery | Government: State Supreme Court decision (Hamilton) clarified deadly/violent force requirement | Strickland: Key Oregon appellate decisions show conviction can rest on non-violent force or mere intent to prevent resistance | Hamilton did not decide the physical-force scope; lower-court decisions show non-violent force suffices |
| Whether the categorical approach allows reference to state-court interpretations | Government: State interpretations can be consulted to find the statute’s outer bounds | Strickland: Accepts categorical approach but argues state interpretations show non-violent force permitted | Court used state decisions as required by the categorical approach and presumed conviction could rest on least conduct criminalized |
| Remedy when residual clause is invalidated but force-clause validity disputed | Government: affirm sentence based on force clause | Strickland: vacate ACCA enhancement and resentencing | Court held Oregon third-degree robbery does not qualify under force clause; vacated and remanded for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015) (ACCA residual clause unconstitutional)
- Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (2010) ("physical force" means violent force capable of causing pain or injury)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (categorical approach for predicate offenses)
- Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013) (elements of statute must match generic offense)
- Moncrieffe v. Holder, 569 U.S. 184 (2013) (presume conviction rests on least culpable conduct)
- United States v. Parnell, 818 F.3d 974 (9th Cir. 2016) (categorical-approach application)
- United States v. Flores-Cordero, 723 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2013) (consider state courts’ interpretations)
- State v. Johnson, 168 P.3d 312 (Or. Ct. App. 2007) (purse snatching upheld under third-degree robbery without notable felt force)
- Pereida-Alba v. Coursey, 342 P.3d 70 (Or. 2015) (third-degree robbery may apply to shoplifting resisting security)
- State v. Williams, 648 P.2d 1354 (Or. Ct. App. 1982) (attempted purse snatch/tug-of-war fits statute)
- State v. Hamilton, 233 P.3d 432 (Or. 2010) (addressed victim definition; did not resolve physical-force question)