United States v. Garcia
877 F.3d 944
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Garcia pled guilty to felon in possession of a firearm; the PSR classified three priors as ACCA predicates (arson, residential burglary, and prisoner weapon possession), yielding a 15-to-life range; the district court sentenced him to 188 months and we affirmed the judgment on direct appeal in 2009.
- Johnson II (2015) held the ACCA residual clause to be unconstitutionally vague, leaving intact the Elements and Enumerated-Offenses Clauses.
- Garcia filed a §2255 motion (2016) asserting his sentence was unconstitutional because one predicate (weapon possession by a prisoner) may not have satisfied the Elements Clause after Johnson II.
- The government conceded the weapon predicate did not qualify post-Johnson II and argued the New Mexico robbery conviction could serve as the third predicate under the Elements Clause, but later revised its position.
- The district court granted Garcia’s motion in part and denied relief in part; Garcia obtained a COA, and the Tenth Circuit affirmed denying relief.
- The central issue is whether New Mexico’s §30-16-2 robbery statute qualifies as a violent felony under the ACCA’s Elements Clause, based on the minimum force required by state law and Johnson I/ Castleman guidance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does NM §30-16-2 satisfy the ACCA Elements Clause? | Garcia argues the statute may not require violent force. | U.S. contends it can qualify as violent under Johnson I/ Bernal analysis. | Yes, it satisfies the Elements Clause as a violent felony. |
| Does Johnson II’s voiding of the Residual Clause affect this case? | Garcia relies on Johnson II to strike the predicate. | Government argued harmless error aside from Residual Clause issues. | Harmlessness rejected to the extent needed; analysis proceeds under Elements Clause. |
| What is the proper judicial approach to evaluating NM robbery under ACCA? | Use state-law minimum force to determine if “physical force” is met. | Treat NM decisions as controlling on force quantification. | Apply the Harris two-step approach, examining minimum force under NM law and Johnson I framework; NM robbery qualifies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (U.S. 2015) (disallowed residual clause; Elements/Enumerated-Offenses clauses remain valid)
- United States v. Harris, 844 F.3d 1260 (10th Cir. 2017) (framework for comparing state robbery to Johnson I standard)
- State v. Bernal, 146 P.3d 289 (N.M. 2006) (robbery as a crime against persons; supports violent-force interpretation)
- State v. Clokey, 553 P.2d 1260 (N.M. 1976) (early NM guidance on force element in robbery)
- State v. Sanchez, 430 P.2d 781 (N.M. Ct. App. 1967) (force or fear required beyond mere touching)