United States v. Rick Jones
877 F.3d 884
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Rick Allen Jones pleaded guilty in 2006 to being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced under the ACCA after the district court found he had at least three prior felony convictions, including three Arizona armed-robbery convictions, producing a 174-month sentence.
- The ACCA imposes a 15-year mandatory minimum when a § 922(g) defendant has three prior convictions for a “serious drug offense” or a “violent felony.”
- After the Supreme Court invalidated the ACCA’s residual clause in Johnson v. United States (2015) and Welch held that decision retroactive, Jones filed a timely 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion arguing he no longer had three qualifying predicate convictions.
- The district court denied Jones’s § 2255 motion; Jones appealed. The Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo whether Arizona armed robbery (§ 13-1904) qualifies as a “violent felony” under the ACCA’s force clause or enumerated-felonies clause.
- The panel relied on its recent decision in United States v. Molinar (applying the categorical approach under the Guidelines) and concluded Arizona armed robbery does not categorically satisfy the ACCA force clause and is not encompassed by the ACCA’s enumerated felonies.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its holding that Arizona armed robbery is not a violent felony under the ACCA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Arizona armed robbery is a "violent felony" under ACCA's force clause | U.S.: Arizona armed robbery involves a weapon and thus qualifies as violent force | Jones: Arizona statute permits convictions without violent (forceful) conduct, so it fails the categorical test | Arizona armed robbery is not a categorical violent felony under the ACCA force clause |
| Whether Arizona armed robbery is a "violent felony" under ACCA's enumerated-felonies clause | U.S.: Molinar treated armed robbery as an enumerated crime under Guidelines; ACCA should likewise encompass it | Jones: ACCA's enumerated list does not include robbery and Arizona statute doesn't match any enumerated offense | Arizona armed robbery does not qualify under the ACCA enumerated-felonies clause (bound by Ninth Circuit precedent that robbery is not enumerated) |
| Applicability of the categorical approach | U.S.: Categorical approach permits treating Arizona armed robbery as ACCA predicate | Jones: Categorical approach shows statute is broader than generic violent felony | Court: Applied categorical approach and found Arizona statute broader than the generic violent-felony definitions |
| Effect of Johnson and Welch on Jones's collateral attack | Jones: Johnson invalidated residual clause retroactively, removing one basis for ACCA enhancement | U.S.: Enhancement still valid if three qualifying predicates remain | Court: After removing residual clause, Jones lacked three qualifying predicates because Arizona armed robbery does not qualify, so relief warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (invalidating ACCA residual clause as unconstitutionally vague)
- Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (2010) (defining "physical force" in ACCA as "violent force")
- Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016) (holding Johnson retroactive on collateral review)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (articulating the categorical approach for predicate offenses)
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013) (clarifying limits of the categorical approach)
- United States v. Dixon, 805 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 2015) (holding robbery is not one of the ACCA enumerated felonies)
- United States v. Werle, 815 F.3d 614 (9th Cir. 2016) (discussing categorical analysis for predicate offenses)