Background

• Lawrence was convicted by a jury of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) after a 2008 shooting.
• At sentencing, the district court applied the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) fifteen-year mandatory minimum.
• The district court held Lawrence had five ACCA predicate offenses: three violent felonies and two serious drug offenses.
• Lawrence appeals, contending the government failed to prove three qualifying prior convictions required by the ACCA (he concedes two drug offenses qualify).
• We review de novo whether a state conviction is a violent felony under the ACCA and apply the categorical approach to the statute’s elements.
• The court concludes that Lawrence’s Washington second-degree assault conviction under Rev. Code § 9A.36.021(1)(a) is categorically a violent felony under the ACCA.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (categorical approach to violent-felony analysis; consider statute definition only)
• Johnson v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 1265 (2010) (interprets 'physical force' as violent force)
• Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (2004) (requires intentional use of physical force; not negligent or accidental)
• Fernandez-Ruiz v. Gonzales, 466 F.3d 1121 (2006) (requires intentional use of force for 'crime of violence' under related standards)
• Grajeda-Ramirez v. United States, 348 F.3d 1123 (2003) (categorical approach applied to state assault statutes; force likely to produce injury qualifies)
• Hermoso-Garcia v. United States, 413 F.3d 1085 (2005) (held Washington § 9A.36.021(1)(a) could be a categorical crime of violence)
• Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183 (2007) (requires realistic probability of non-generic application of a statute)
• Laurico-Yeno v. United States, 590 F.3d 818 (2010) (applies the least-egregious conduct standard in the categorical approach)
• Singh v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1228 (2004) (analyzes whether a statute may be violated by non-violent conduct under categorical approach)