United States v. Manzanares

Apr 17, 2020

18-2010

Versions:956 F.3d 1220

Margaret A. Katze, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Office of the Federal Public Defender for the District of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico, appearing for Appellant.

C. Paige Messec, Assistant United States Attorney (John C. Anderson, United States Attorney, with her on the briefs), Office of the United States Attorney for the District of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico, appearing for Appellee.

Before BRISCOE, KELLY, and CARSON, Circuit Judges.

BRISCOE, Circuit Judge.

Defendant-Appellant Archie Manzanares appeals from the district court‘s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging his sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). Because the district court granted a certificate of appealability (COA) as to one issue, we exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We affirm the denial of relief and deny Mr. Mаnzanares‘s motion to expand the COA.

I

On April 1, 2013, Mr. Manzanares pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2), and to possession of a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 844. ROA, Vol. II at 11. His plea agreement provided for a 15-year sentence if the district cоurt determined he was an armed career criminal. Id. at 12. On July 2, 2013, after concluding that Mr. Manzanares had at least three prior violent felonies and thus qualified as an armed career criminal, the district court imposed the 15-year sentence contemplated by the plea agreement. Id., Vol. IV at 5.

Under the ACCA, an offense qualified as a violent felony by satisfying at least one of three definitions, which have come to be known as the Elements Clause, the Enumerated Clause, and the Residual Clause. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B); United States v. Garcia, 877 F.3d 944, 946 (10th Cir. 2017), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 1257 (2019). After Mr. Manzanares‘s conviction was final, the Supreme Court invalidated the Residual Clause as being unconstitutionally vague, see Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551, 2557, 2563 (2015) (Johnson II), and then made Johnson II applicable to cases on collateral review, see Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257, 1268 (2016).

In his timely Johnson II-based § 2255 motion, Mr. Manzanares asserted that without the Residual Clause, his underlying New Mexico convictions (armed robbery, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and aggravated battery) no longer qualified as violent felonies. The district court denied the motion, сoncluding that all three underlying convictions satisfy the Elements Clause. ROA, Vol. I at 184. It then granted a COA regarding the armed robbery conviction but denied a COA as to the other two convictions.¹ Id. at 186–87. Mr. Manzanares appeals the classification of the armed robbery conviction as a violent felоny, and he seeks to expand the COA to allow him to appeal the decision regarding the aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and aggravated battery convictions.

II

The district court granted a COA on the issue of whether armed robbery in violation of N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-16-2 satisfies the Elements Clause. We review the district court‘s legal rulings on a § 2255 motion de novo and its findings of fact for clear error. Garcia, 877 F.3d at 947–48. Whether a prior conviction satisfies the ACCA‘s violent ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍felony definition is a legal question we review de novo. Id. at 948. The government bears the burden of proving a prior conviction qualifies under the ACCA. Id.

To determine this issue, we apply the “categorical approaсh,” focusing on the elements of the crime of conviction, not the underlying facts. Id. The Elements Clause provides that a conviction is a “violent felony” if it “has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i). “[T]he phrase ‘physical force’ means violent force—that is, force capable of causing physical pain or injury to another person.” Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133, 140 (2010) (Johnson I) (emphasis in original).

We must first identify the minimum “force” required by state law for the crime of conviction, and second determine if that force categorically fits the definition of physical force. United States v. Ontiveros, 875 F.3d 533, 535–36 (10th Cir. 2017). “When construing the minimum culpable conduct required for a conviction, such conduct only includes that in which there is a realistic probability, not a theoretical possibility, the state statute would apply.” Id. at 536 (internal quotation marks omitted).

N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-16-2 provides as follows:

Robbery consists of the theft of anything of value from the person of another or from the immediate control of another, by use or threatened use of force or violence.

Whoever commits robbery is guilty of a third degree felony.

Whoever commits robbery while armed with a deadly weapon is, for the first offense, guilty of a second degree felony and, for second and subsequent offenses, is guilty of a first degree felony.

After the district court issued its decision in this сase, this court decided Garcia, where we considered whether a conviction for third degree robbery under the same New Mexico robbery statute qualified as a violent felony under the Elements Clause. We held that third degree robbery “categorically matches the definition of ‘physical force’ the Supreme Court assigned in Johnson I” as it “has an element the use or threatened use of physical force against another person.” Garcia, 877 F.3d at 956. In concluding that robbery under § 30-16-2 “is a violent felony under the ACCA‘s Elements Clause,” id., we emphasized that the “mere[] snatching [of property] without any resistance from the victim would not” satisfy “the element of force for robbery” under the New Mexico statute, id. at 954 (citing State v. Curley, 939 P.2d 1103, 1105 (N.M. Ct. App. 1997)) (concluding that “when no more force is used than would be necessary to remove property from a person who does not resist, then the offense is larceny, and not robbery”).

After Garcia was decided, the Supreme Court decided Stokeling v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 544, 550 (2019), which held that the ACCA‘s Elements Clause “encompasses robbery offenses that require the criminal to overcome the victim‘s resistance.” After issuing Stokeling, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Garcia. See Garcia v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 1257 (2019).

The government contends Stokeling and Garcia control the outcome in this case. Mr. Manzanares responds that Garcia was wrongly decided and that New Mexico robbery does not have as an element the use of physical force as described by Stokeling. We agree with the government that Stokeling and Garcia are controlling.

We acknowledge “[w]e cannot overrule the judgment of another panel of this court. We are bound by the precedent of prior panels absent en banc reconsideration or a superseding contrary decision by the Supreme Court.” In re Smith, 10 F.3d 723, 724 (10th Cir. 1993) (per curiam). Further, “when a panel of this Court has rendered a decision interpreting state law, that interpretation is binding on . . . subsequent panels of this Court, unless an intervening decision of the state‘s highest court has resolved the issue.” Wankier v. Crown Equip. Corp., 353 F.3d 862, 866 (10th Cir. 2003).

Garcia held that a conviction for simple robbery under § 30-16-2 satisfies the Elements Clause, and, as Mr. Manzanares concedes, interpreted the statute ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍to require force that overcomes the victim‘s resistance. See Aplt. Br. at 21 (“As the Garcia panel acknowlеdged, numerous New Mexico cases expressly state that ‘any quantum of force which overcomes resistance would be sufficient to support a robbery conviction.‘”) (citing Garcia, 877 F.3d at 956). If simple robbery satisfies the Elements Clause, then necessarily armed robbery under the same statute would satisfy the Elemеnts Clause. We are bound by Garcia‘s interpretation of the New Mexico robbery statute, and we are unpersuaded by Mr. Manzanares‘s arguments urging us to reconsider its holdings.

First, Stokeling is not a superseding contrary Supreme Court decision. Rather than undermining Garcia‘s result, Stokeling compels it. Stokeling holds that the amount of force sufficient to overcome a viсtim‘s resistance satisfies Johnson I‘s force standard. 139 S. Ct. at 555; see also United States v. Ash, 917 F.3d 1238, 1242 (10th Cir. 2019), cert. filed, No. 18-9639 (June 12, 2019) (noting, after Stokeling, that “[t]he line is drawn, therefore, between robbery that can be accomplished by the mere snatching of property and robbery that requires overcoming even slight victim resistance”). And, as interpreted in Garcia, New Mexico‘s robbery statute distinguishes “robbery” from “larceny” using a nearly identical standard as Stokeling: “[R]obbery is committed when attached property is snatched or grabbed by sufficient force so as to overcome the resistance of attachment,” Curley, 939 P.2d at 1105, but it is not committed by a “mere[] snatching . . . without any resistance from the victim,” Garcia, 877 F.3d at 954. See also State v. Martinez, 513 P.2d 402, 402 (N.M. Ct. App. 1973) (affirming robbery conviction where “there was more than a ‘mere snatching‘”); State v. Sanchez, 430 P.2d 781, 782 (N.M. Ct. App. 1967) (stating that the force used “must overcome the victim‘s resistance” and reversing a robbery conviction because facts were “comparable to those pickpocket or purse snatching cases”).

To be sure, in Ash, we noted that the standard applied in Garcia was “arguably . . . different” than the standard applied by the Supreme Court in Stokeling. 917 F.3d at 1242 n.5. That is, rather than determining only whether New Mexiсo robbery requires force to overcome a victim‘s resistance, Garcia drew a different line: whether the New Mexico statute requires “the use of any physical force” to overcome the victim‘s resistance or something “more than minimal actual force.” 877 F.3d at 950 (emphasis in original). But Stokeling held that either of these reаdings of New Mexico law would satisfy Johnson I, concluding that any “force necessary to overcome a victim‘s physical resistance is inherently ‘violent’ in the sense contemplated by Johnson.” 139 S. Ct. at 553. Thus, Stokeling does not undermine Garcia‘s result.²

Moreover, because there has been no intervening change in state law, we are bound by Garcia‘s interpretation of New Mexico‘s robbery statute. See Wankier, 353 F.3d at 866. Mr. Manzanares argues that a post-Garcia state law decision, State v. Barela, No. A-1-CA-34945, 2018 WL 4959122 (N.M. Ct. App. Sept. 4, 2018), illustrates that New Mexico robbery can be perpetrated without any use, ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍attempted use, or explicit threats of force. Aplt. Rep. Br. at 5. In Barela, 2018 WL 4959122, at *2, the New Mexico Court of Appeals upheld the defendant‘s robbery conviction because the evidence showed the defendant had uttered threats of violence, which satisfied the state‘s obligation to show that the defendant took the purse by threatened force or violence. See id. Because Barela required a threatened use of violence to uphold a robbery conviction, it likewise does not undermine Garcia.³

Given Stokeling‘s holding that force which overcomes a victim‘s resistance is violent force, and Garcia‘s holding that New Mexico‘s robbery statute requires that level of force, we affirm the district court‘s conclusion that Mr. Manzanares‘s New Mexico armed robbery conviction satisfies the Elements Clause.

III

Mr. Manzanares has also mоved to expand the COA to address his other two underlying prior convictions. A COA requires “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), meaning that Mr. Manzanares “must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court‘s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong,” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

A

One of Mr. Manzanаres‘s prior convictions is for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, in violation of N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-3-2(A). Under N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-3-2(A), “[a]ggravated assault consists of . . . unlawfully assaulting or striking at another with a deadly weapon.” This court has twice held that § 30-3-2(A) satisfies the Elements Clause. See United States v. Maldonado-Palma, 839 F.3d 1244, 1250 (10th Cir. 2016) (holding § 30-3-2(A) is categorically a crime of violence under the Elements Clause of United Stаtes Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2L1.2);⁴ United States v. Ramon Silva, 608 F.3d 663, 674 (10th Cir. 2010) (holding § 30-3-2(A) is categorically a violent felony under the Elements Clause), abrogated on other grounds by Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016).

Mr. Manzanares argues that Maldonado-Palma and Ramon Silva were wrongly decided and that they are undermined by a subsequent New Mexico Court of Appeals decision, State v. Branch, 417 P.3d 1141 (N.M. Ct. App. 2018) (Branch II), because Branch II holds that aggravated assault does not require a specific intent to use a deadly wеapon “against the person of another.” But Branch II‘s holding that aggravated assault is a general-intent crime did not alter the state of the law. Rather, as Ramon Silva recognized, “aggravated assault does not require proof of a specific intent to assault the victim, or of a specific intent tо injure or even frighten the victim[; thus confirming] that aggravated assault is not a specific intent crime, but rather is a general intent crime.” 608 F.3d at 673 (brackets, citations, and internal quotation marks omitted). The offense is a violent felony because it requires “unlawfully assaulting or striking at another,” § 30-3-2(A), employing a deadly weapon, Maldonado-Palma, 839 F.3d at 1250, with general criminal intent, see Ramon Silva, 608 F.3d at 673, all of which we have hеld at least threaten the use of physical force against the person of another. Given this court‘s binding precedent, no reasonable jurist could debate the district court‘s conclusion that Mr. Manzanares‘s New Mexico conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapоn satisfies the Elements Clause.

B

Mr. Manzanares‘s other prior conviction is for aggravated battery, in violation of N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-3-5(C). N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-3-5 states:

A. Aggravated battery consists of the unlawful touching or application of force ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍to the person of another with intent to injure that person or another.

B. Whoever commits аggravated battery, inflicting an injury to the person which is not likely to cause death or great bodily harm, but does cause painful temporary disfigurement or temporary loss or impairment of the functions of any member or organ of the body, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

C. Whoever commits aggravated bаttery inflicting great bodily harm or does so with a deadly weapon or does so in any manner whereby great bodily harm or death can be inflicted is guilty of a third degree felony.

Mr. Manzanares argues that a conviction under § 30-3-5(C) does not categorically require Johnson I-level force because “New Mexico aggravated battery is focused on the resulting harm to the person[,] not the force behind the unlawful touching.” Aplt. Br. at 57. For this proposition, Mr. Manzanares relies on United States v. Perez-Vargas, 414 F.3d 1282 (10th Cir. 2005), and United States v. Rodriguez-Enriquez, 518 F.3d 1191 (10th Cir. 2008). Aplt. Br. at 54.

However, we expressly overruled Rodriguez-Enriquez and Perez-Vargas in United States v. Ontiveros, 875 F.3d 533, 536 (10th Cir. 2017), citing and relying on the Supreme Court‘s decision in United States v. Castleman, 572 U.S. 157 (2014). The Supreme Court in Castleman “specifically rejected the contention that ‘one can cause bodily injury without the use of physical force.‘” Ontiveros, 875 F.3d at 536 (quoting Castleman, 572 U.S. at 170). Thus, in Ontiveros, we concluded that Colorado second-degree assault is a crime of violence, even though the crime‘s elements “focus on the result of the conduct (serious bodily injury), not the conduct itself.” Id. (holding that “Perez-Vargas and Rodriguez-Enriquez relied on reasoning that is no longer viable in light of Castleman”). Mr. Manzanares contends that Rodriguez-Enriquez and Perez-Vargas “should remain binding precedent,” Aplt. Br. at 57, but we are bound by Ontiveros and the Supreme Court‘s ruling in Castleman. The district court‘s conclusion that Mr. Manzanares‘s conviction under § 30-3-5(C) satisfies the Elements Clause is not reasonably debatable.

IV

We affirm the district court‘s denial of Mr. Manzanares‘s § 2255 motion, deny his motion to expand the COA, and deny as moot the gоvernment‘s motion for summary affirmance.

Notes

The district court did not require Mr. Manzanares to show that the Residual Clause played a role in his sentencing. See (affirming denial of relief where the defendant was sentenced under the Enumerated Clause, rather than the Residual Clause). We need not determine what effect the Residual Clause had at sentencing, however, because any error in applying the Residual Clause would be harmless, as the government has shown that Mr. Manzanares has three convictions that qualify as violent felonies under the Elements Clause. See (stating a Johnson II error would be harmless if the dеfendant has three valid predicate convictions to support an ACCA sentence).

Mr. Manzanares also relies on our post-Stokeling decision in , but involved a different state statute than the one at issue here. In , we concluded that a conviction under Kansas‘s robbery statute did not qualify as a violent felony because Kansas law, in contrast with that оf New Mexico, permits a defendant to be convicted of violating the statute without any resistance by or injury to the victim. . In other words, Kansas robbery falls on the other side of the “snatching” line.

Even if we were not bound by interpretation of New Mexico‘s robbery statute, we would conclude that the statute, as appliеd by New Mexico courts, requires force that overcomes the victim‘s resistance rather than the mere snatching of property. See ; ; ; see also (noting that robbery is “distinct from larceny because it requires, and is designed to punish, the element of force”). Mr. Manzanares, however, points to , where thе New Mexico Supreme Court held that “the evidence supported the verdict of the jury that the snatching of the purse was accompanied by force sufficient to convert the crime from larceny to robbery.” But the New Mexico Court of Appeals, in its post-Clokey decisions, has not interpreted as requiring an amount of fоrce less than necessary ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍to overcome a victim‘s resistance. See, e.g., (noting that “the issue in [Clokey] was not whether there was evidence justifying a lesser-included-offense instruction [of larceny]”).

Given the “similarity in language between the ACCA and [the Sentencing Guidelines]” defining “violent felony” and “crime of violence,” respectively, we may “look[] to precedent under one provision for guidance under another in determining whether a conviction qualifies as a violent felony.” (quotations omitted).

Read the detailed case summary