United States v. Roger Redrick
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 20106
| D.C. Cir. | 2016Background
- Roger Redrick pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm; plea agreement anticipated application of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) and its 15-year mandatory minimum enhancement.
- Four prior convictions were identified as ACCA predicates: D.C. armed robbery (1983), Maryland robbery with a deadly weapon (1985), Maryland robbery with a deadly weapon (1989), and a 1990 D.C. drug conviction (serious drug offense).
- After Redrick’s plea but before this appeal concluded, the Supreme Court in Johnson v. United States (2015) held the ACCA residual clause unconstitutionally vague, narrowing ACCA predicates to the force clause and the enumerated-offense clause.
- The parties and district court had relied (or at least treated the enhancement as valid) pre-Johnson; Redrick challenged on appeal whether the Maryland armed-robbery convictions qualify under the valid force clause.
- Maryland robbery law combined common-law robbery with a statutory sentencing enhancement for use of a dangerous or deadly weapon; Maryland precedent and instructions require proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the weapon use.
- The D.C. Circuit held that Maryland Robbery with a Deadly Weapon (as convicted) contains an element requiring use or threatened use of violent physical force and therefore qualifies under the ACCA force clause; Redrick’s sentence thus remains legal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Redrick may challenge his ACCA enhancement despite a plea waiver | Government: waiver in plea forecloses appeal except for an illegal sentence; enhancement was part of the plea bargain | Redrick: may challenge sentence as illegal under Johnson because residual clause invalidated; waiver doesn’t bar this challenge | Court: plea waiver did not bar challenge to an illegal sentence; but review is forfeiture/plain-error standard — court proceeded to merits and found no error |
| Whether Redrick’s Maryland robbery-with-deadly-weapon convictions qualify as ACCA "violent felonies" under the force clause | Government (on appeal): those Maryland convictions constitute violent felonies under the force clause | Redrick: Maryland labeling of the weapon provision as a "sentence enhancement" means weapon use is not an element, so convictions do not meet the force clause; even if an element, hypotheticals (poison, bacteria, threats to property) show statute might sweep too broadly | Court: Maryland practice requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the robbery was committed with a deadly/dangerous weapon; thus the weapon component functions as an element and supplies violent force; realistic hypotheticals are unlikely and do not defeat the categorical inquiry |
| Whether the ACCA residual clause’s invalidation requires vacatur because district court may have relied on it | Redrick: if sentencing relied on residual clause, sentence is truly illegal post-Johnson | Government: sentence is not illegal because at least three qualifying predicates remain | Court: even assuming possible reliance, two Maryland armed-robbery convictions qualify under the valid force clause, so the sentence remains lawful |
| Appropriate standard of review given failure to press the issue below | Government: forfeiture/plain-error review applies; counsel did not object, so must show plain error | Redrick: while forfeiture applies, the law after Johnson controls so merits review is appropriate | Court: applied forfeiture/plain-error framework but treated the analysis substantively (and ultimately found no reversible error) |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (ACCA residual clause is unconstitutionally vague)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (modified categorical approach and parsing divisible statutes)
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013) (limits on looking beyond statute; divisible statutes and modified categorical approach)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (categorical approach and aim of uniform federal treatment)
- Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (2010) (definition of "physical force" for ACCA analyzed)
- United States v. Castleman, 134 S. Ct. 1405 (2014) (force can include indirect causes like poisoning in certain contexts)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain-error standard for forfeited issues)