224 F. Supp. 3d 816
D. Minn.2016Background
- Defendant Edward Townsend convicted federally for being a felon in possession of a firearm; sentencing court considered application of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) 15-year mandatory minimum.
- ACCA applies if defendant has at least three prior "violent felony" convictions under the force/elements clause (use, attempted use, or threatened use of violent physical force).
- Townsend has four prior felonies: Wisconsin substantial battery; Minnesota fifth-degree assault; Minnesota first-degree aggravated robbery; Wisconsin armed robbery.
- Parties disputed which prior convictions qualify as ACCA predicates; resolution depends on categorical/modified-categorical analysis and state statutory elements/case law.
- Court evaluated each prior conviction against ACCA’s force clause and applied Descamps/Mathis limits on examining conviction records.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gov't) | Defendant's Argument (Townsend) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wisconsin substantial battery is an ACCA predicate | Statute requires substantial bodily harm and thus violent force | Challenges briefly; no developed argument | Held: qualifies as a violent-felony predicate under the force clause |
| Whether Minnesota fifth-degree assault is an ACCA predicate | Statute includes intentionally inflicting bodily harm or causing fear of immediate bodily harm; thus violent force | Argued uncertainty and flux in the law | Held: qualifies as a violent-felony predicate (Eighth Circuit Schaffer precedent followed) |
| Whether Minnesota first-degree aggravated robbery is an ACCA predicate | Gov't relied on Maxwell and urged statute requires sufficient force | Townsend argued conviction can be secured by merely possessing a dangerous weapon (no use/threat), so no violent force element | Held: statute is divisible; conviction was under the dangerous-weapon prong (possession), which is NOT an ACCA predicate; therefore this conviction does not count |
| Whether Wisconsin armed robbery is an ACCA predicate | Gov't argued armed robbery requires use or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, thus violent force | Townsend argued case law can allow conviction without actual weapon or threat | Held: qualifies as a violent-felony predicate because Wisconsin law requires that the victim reasonably believe they were threatened with a dangerous weapon |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (2010) (defines "physical force" as violent force capable of causing pain or injury)
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013) (categorical approach and limits on sentencing-court factfinding)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (distinguishes alternative elements from alternative means for divisibility analysis)
- Maxwell v. United States, 823 F.3d 1057 (7th Cir. 2016) (held Minnesota robbery a "crime of violence" for Guidelines calculations)
- Eason v. United States, 829 F.3d 633 (8th Cir. 2016) (interpreted force-clause issues relevant to state robbery statutes)
- Schaffer v. United States, 818 F.3d 796 (8th Cir. 2016) (held Minnesota domestic assault statute qualifies under the ACCA force clause)
- Lindsey v. United States, 827 F.3d 733 (8th Cir. 2016) (threatened use of violent physical force can satisfy ACCA force clause)