N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. LADEL B APTISTE HAR RISON, De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 16-35128

D.C . Nos. 2:07-c v-00147-R HW 2:03-c r-00016-R HW -1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of W a shington R obe rt H. W

ha le y , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M ay

11, 2017 Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : M c K EOW

N, B E A, a

n d N.R . SM ITH, C i rc u it Judge s. Harrison a

ppe a ls the distric t c o urt’ s de n ia l of his suc c e ssive m otion to
va c a te , se t a side , or c orre c t his se nte n c e unde r 28 U.S.C . § 2255(a ). W e have 

# F IL ED MAY24 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public ation a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 2253(a ). W e re ve rse and re m and with instruc tions to

gran t Ha rrison’ s suc c e ssive m o tion to va c ate his se nte nc e . 1 Harrison a

rgue s tha t his c onvic tion unde r W a shington’ s se c ond-de gre e a ssa ult sta tute doe s not qua lify

a s a “ viole nt fe lony ” unde r the Arm e d C are e r C rim ina l Ac t (“ AC C A” ) be c a use W a shington’ s se c ond-de gre e a s sa ult sta tute is

“ ove rbroa d” and “ indivisible
. ” Se e Mathis v . Unite d State s , 136 S. C t. 2243, 2248–49 (2016); De

sc amps v . Unite d State

s , 133 S. C t. 2276, 2283 (2013). We a gre e . The gove rnm e nt c onc e de s tha t W a shington’ s se c ond-de gre e a s sa ult sta tute is “ ove rbroa d” be c a

use the le a st e g re gious m e ans by whic h a n individual
c an viola t e the sta tute

— w i th inte nt to c o m

m it a fe lony , unla

w fully touc h a nothe r with c rim ina l inte n t— d oe s not ne c e ssa rily involveforc e “ c a

p a ble of c a u sing phy sic a l pa in or injury .” Se e W a sh. R e v. C ode § 9A.36.021(1)(e ); J ohnson v
. Unite d State s , 559 U.S. 133, 140 (2010) (holding tha t the te rm “ phy sic a l forc e ” in the A C C A’ s de finition of “v iole nt fe lony ” m e ans “ v iole nt forc e
— that is, forc e c a pa ble of c a using phy sic a l pa in or injury to a nothe r pe rson” ). W a shington’ s se c o nd-de gre e a ssa

u lt sta tute is a lso “ indivisible ” be c a use the sta

tute lists
a lte rnative m e ans of c om

m i tting thesa

m e offe nse . Se e State

v . Smith , 154 P.3d

1 B e c a use the pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with the fa c ts, we do not re c i te the m he re . 2873, 876 (W a sh. 2007) (e n ba nc ) (“ Alte rnative m e ans c rim e s are one s tha t provide that the prosc ribe d c rim ina l c onduc t m ay be prove d in a

va rie ty of wa y s. As a ge ne ra l rule , suc h c rim e s a re se t forth in a

sta tute sta ting a single offe nse , unde r whic h a re se t forth m o re tha

n one m e ans by

whic h the offe nse m a

y be c om m itte d. C rim ina l a s sa

ult is just suc

h a c rim e . ” ) (c i tation omitte d); se e also Mathis , 136 S. C t. at 2256 (“ [A] s tate c ourt de c ision de finitive ly answe rs the [divisibility] que stion . . . .” ). B e c a

use W a shington’ s se c o nd-de gre e a ssa ult sta tute is

“ ove rbroa d” and “ indivisible , ” Harrison’ s c onvic tion unde r that sta tue doe s not qua lify a s a “ viole nt fe l ony ” unde r the AC C A. Se e De sc amps , 133 S. C t . at 2283. The re fore , Ha

rrison la c ks the third pre dic ate offe nse ne c e ssa ry to justify the
se nte nc e e nha

nc e m e nt he re c e ive d unde r the AC C A. Se e 18 U.S.C . § 924(e )(1). Harrison ha s a lre a dy

se rve d m ore tha n te n y e a rs— the m a xim

um se nte nc e he c o uld ha

v e re c e ive d for his c onvic tion unde r 18 U.S.C . § 922(g) without a n AC C A se nte n c e e nha

nc e m e n t. Se e 1 8 U.S.C . § 924(a )(2) (“ Whoe ve r knowingly

viola te s subse c tion [(g)] of se c tion 922 shall be fine d a s provide d in this title , im prisone d not m ore tha

n 10 y e ars, or both.” ). The re fore , we instruc t the

3distric t c o urt to orde r Harrison’ s im m e diate re le a s e . 2 The m a

n date sha ll issue forthwith. RE V E R SE D and RE M ANDE D.

2 W e a lso gra

nt Ha rrison’ s m otion to strike

the Supple m e nta l Exc e rpts of R e c ord. Se e Ninth C irc uit R ule 17-1.5 (“ The e xc e rpts of re c ord sha ll not inc lude brie fs or othe r m e m o randa of la w unle ss ne c e ssa

ry to the re solution of a

n issue on re vie w, a nd sha ll inc l ude only t

hose pa ge s ne c e ssa

ry the re for.” ); Fe d. R . App. P. 30(a )(2) (“ M e m oranda

of la w in the distric t c ourt should not be inc lude d in the a ppe ndix unle s s the y hav e inde pe nde nt re le va nc e .” ). 4