Joshua Ward v. United States

Summary

The Ninth Circuit held that a Minnesota conviction for aiding and abetting simple robbery qualifies as a predicate violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act's force clause, because the minimum force required includes the amount necessary to overcome a victim's resistance. The court found that its prior distinction between "substantial" and "minimal" force in the ACCA robbery context is irreconcilable with the Supreme Court's holding in Stokeling v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 544 (2019). This case applies Stokeling to Minnesota's simple robbery statute, which is virtually indistinguishable from the Florida statute at issue in Stokeling.

Holdings

1. Minnesota simple robbery qualifies as a violent felony under the ACCA's force clause because the minimum force required to sustain the offense includes the amount of force necessary to overcome a victim's resistance, as defined by Stokeling v. United States.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Ward's Minnesota conviction for aiding and abetting simple robbery under Minn. Stat. Ann. § 609.24 qualifies as a predicate violent felony under the ACCA's force clause, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i).

Disposition

affirmed