We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

9TH CIRCUIT HOLDS WASHINGTON STATE DRUG STATUTE OVERBROAD FOR ACCA

A year ago, the 9th Circuit ruled in United States v. Valdivia-Flores that Washington State’s accomplice liability statute rendered its drug trafficking law categorically broader than a federal drug trafficking equivalent. Thus, a Washington drug conviction was found to not categorically constitute an illicit trafficking offense and to not be an aggravated felony under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

The federal aiding-and-abetting standard requires the government to prove an accomplice has “specific intent” to facilitate the crime. Washington law by contrast requires only that the government prove a person “with knowledge that it will promote or facilitate the commission of the crime… solicits, commands, encourages, or requests the principal to commit it; or aids or agrees to aid [the principal] in planning or committing it.”

Specific intent and knowledge are distinct. “Intentionally abetting the commission of a crime involves a more culpable state of mind than knowingly doing so.” Validivia-Flores held, “because the Washington statute does criminalize conduct that would not constitute a drug offense under federal law — due to the distinct aiding and abetting definitions — it is overbroad.”

Last week, although the government vigorously argued to the contrary, the 9th Circuit ruled there was no pertinent difference between the “serious drug offense” description in the Armed Career Criminal Act and the generic “illicit trafficking” described in the statute analyzed in Valdivia-Flores. Thus, the Washington drug statute is broad than the generic drug offense that constitutes a “serious drug felony” under the ACCA, and no longer can count as a predicate for an ACCA conviction.

United States v. Franklin, Case No. 17-30011 (9th Cir. Sept. 13, 2018)

– Thomas L. Root