At аge twenty, Petitioner Chris Powell was convicted in Maine state court of eluding a police officer. The statute under which he was convictеd prohibited driving at a reckless rate of speed while being pursued by a police vehicle making use of its siren and blue light. 29 Maine Revised Statutes § 2501-A(3)(since superseded).
At age twenty-one, Petitioner was convicted of burglary. At age twenty-two, he was convicted of another burglary. At age thirty-onе, he was found in possession of a shotgun. He was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He pled guilty, and the United States District Court for the District of Maine treated each of these previous convictions in state court as ‘violent crime’ predicates for purposes of sentencing Petitioner to the mandatory minimum term of fifteen years imprisonment under the federal Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). See 18 U.S.C. § 924(e).
The firearm in question was а shotgun that Petitioner says he inherited from his deceased father. The weapon was found in his possession when law enforcement authorities investigating a series of burglaries and thefts in early 2003 executed a search warrant at Petitioner’s residence. Petitioner was arrested and charged with a number of stealing offenses, plus drug possession and unlawful gun possession. When he was sentenced by the federal district court under the ACCA, these state charges were still pending.
*491
Petitioner has brought a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate the sentence, arguing that his counsel provided him ineffectivе assistance by not objecting to the use of his conviction for eluding police as a violent-crime predicate under the ACCA. At the outset, wе note that the state of the law at the time of Petitioner’s sentencing gave scant indication that such an objection was likely to succеed. There was little case law, and the two opinions directly on point both went against Petitioner’s position.
United States v. Howze,
In
Winn,
we endorsed the broad proposition that any ‘escape scenario’ was like a ‘powder keg,’ ready to explode into violence when officers attempted to recapture the escapee.
Id.
at 11-12. The reasoning set forth in
Winn
concerning escape offenses extends easily to evasive driving offenses. It is thus far from clear that defense counsel would dip below the bench mark for effective advocacy by failing to raise an objection to the use of Petitioner’s evasive driving conviction as an ACCA sentencing predicate, even if the objection would later be determined to havе merit.
See, e.g., Kornahrens v. Evatt,
In any event, the sentencing issue raised by Petitioner is a recurring one, but one that this Circuit has not yet addrеssed. Wé think that the merits of the Petitioner’s argument about his ACCA sentence, underlying his claim ’ of ineffective assistance, is the most appropriate bаsis for resolving this matter.
Recently, Petitioner’s contentions concerning the use of convictions for evasive driving as ACCA predicates have bеen raised by other defendants before federal courts across the country. A consensus has emerged that evasive driving offenses, like prison escapes, constitute a category
1
of ‘violent’ crime within the meaning of the ACCA’s provision for “conduct that presents a serious pоtential risk of physical injury to another.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii).
See United States v. Howze,
We recognize that the Ninth Circuit has determined that violations of Washington state’s superceded еvasive driving law were not categorically violent within the meaning of the ACCA, because that statute criminalized mere risk to property, even without threat to persons.
United States v. Kelly,
The use of Petitioner’s conviction for еluding police as an ACCA predicate comports with the sound reasoning of the majority-view cases cited above. The statute under which Petitioner was convicted provided that
Whoever, after being requested or signaled to stop, attempts to elude a law enforcement officer by driving a vehicle at a reckless rate of speed which results in a high-speed chase between the operator’s vehicle and any law enforcement vehicle using a blue light and siren is guilty [of a felony-level crime].
29 Maine Revised Statutes § 2501-A(3)(since superseded). We agreе with the view that high-speed car chases pose a grave threat of death and injury by collision, as well as escalated confrontations between suspects and police. Such a category of crime manifestly “involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk оf physical injury to another” within the meaning of the ACCA. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii).
We hold that Petitioner’s conviction for eluding police is a proper violent-crime predicate under the ACCA. Since we reject the Petitioner’s contention that his evasive-driving conviction was not a valid ACCA sentencing predicatе, it follows that his claim of ineffective assistance based on his defense counsel’s failure to raise the contention presents no substantiаl issue for appeal.
Petitioner Chris Powell’s request for a certificate of appealability is denied.
Notes
.
See Shepard v. United States,