United States v. Maldonado
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 21997
| 10th Cir. | 2012Background
- In December 2008 Maldonado pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).
- The PSR concluded the ACCA applies due to three prior burglaries: a California first-degree burglary and two New Mexico residential burglaries.
- Maldonado objected that California first-degree burglary is not a violent felony under the ACCA because it lacks an unlawful-entry element.
- The district court overruled the objection and imposed the ACCA mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years to life.
- On appeal Maldonado challenges whether California’s first-degree burglary qualifies as a violent felony under the ACCA residual clause.
- The panel affirms the district court, ruling that the California statute is a violent felony under the ACCA residual clause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether California first-degree burglary is a violent felony under ACCA residual clause | Maldonado argues no due to lack of unlawful-entry element | Government argues yes as residual-clause violent felony | Yes; it qualifies under the residual clause |
| Whether California first-degree burglary is roughly similar to generic burglary | Maldonado contends risk is not the same as generic burglary | Government contends it is roughly similar in risk and nature | Yes; it is roughly similar to generic burglary |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Park, 649 F.3d 1175 (9th Cir. 2011) (used to analogize California first-degree burglary under residual clause)
- James v. United States, 550 U.S. 195 (Supreme Court 2007) (definition of generic burglary; confrontation risk guiding residual clause analysis)
- Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (Supreme Court 2008) (limits on applying the 'purposeful, violent, and aggressive' test to residual clause cases)
- Sykes v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2267 (Supreme Court 2011) (limits on Begay test; supports focusing on risk similarity for residual clause offenses with intentional conduct)
- Chambers v. United States, 555 U.S. 122 (Supreme Court 2008) (notion that failure to report to probation is not roughly similar to enumerated offenses)
- United States v. Huizar, 688 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir. 2012) (addressed whether California burglary second degree equals generic burglary; residual clause analysis discussed)
- United States v. Scanlan, 677 F.3d 896 (7th Cir. 2012) (California first-degree burglary deemed violent felony under Guidelines residual clause)
- United States v. McConnell, 605 F.3d 822 (10th Cir. 2010) (two-part residual-clause test: serious risk and rough similarity to generic burglary)