Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1689204.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 07:14:14+00:00

Document:
Before ANDREWJ. KLEINFELD and KIM McLANE WARDLAW, Circuit Judges, and MATTHEW F. KENNELLY, District Judge.* Vincent J. Brunkow (argued), Kara Lee Hartzler, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant–Appellant. Mark R. Rehe (argued), Andrew R. Haden, United States Attorney's Office, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff–Appellee.
Jimenez–Arzate argues that the district court erred in finding that his prior conviction for violation of California Penal Code § 245(a)(1) is categorically a crime of violence for federal sentencing purposes. He contends that United States v. Grajeda, 581 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir.2009), is no longer good law in light of People v. Aznavoleh, 148 Cal.Rptr.3d 901 (Ct.App.2012), and People v. Wyatt, 229 P.3d 156 (Cal.2010). Jimenez–Arzate also argues that Ceron v. Holder, 747 F.3d 773 (9th Cir.2014) (en banc), abrogates Grajeda.
We disagree. Aznavoleh involved a defendant who intentionally ran a red light while racing another car down the street even though he saw a car entering the intersection on the green. People v. Aznavoleh, 148 Cal.Rptr.3d 901, 905, 908 (Ct.App.2012). The defendant made no effort to stop despite a passenger warning him that he needed to stop. Id. at 904. The California Court of Appeal upheld the trial court's finding that the defendant met the willfulness element of assault under California Penal Code § 245(a)(1), which the California Court of Appeal defined as intentionality. Id. at 906.
Wyatt involved a father who, while play wrestling with his infant son, struck the boy with such force that he killed him. People v. Wyatt, 229 P.3d 156, 157 (Cal.2010). The Wyatt court upheld the father's conviction for involuntary manslaughter and assault on a child causing death because “substantial evidence established that defendant knew he was striking his young son with his fist, forearm, knee, and elbow, and that he used an amount of force a reasonable person would realize was likely to result in great bodily injury.” Id. As did the California Court of Appeal in Aznavoleh, the California Supreme Court in Wyatt explained that “a defendant guilty of assault must be aware of the facts that would lead a reasonable person to realize that a battery would directly, naturally and probably result from his conduct. He may not be convicted based on facts he did not know but should have known.” Id. at 159 (quoting People v. Williams, 29 P.3d 197, 203 (Cal.2001)).
Ceron v. Holder, 747 F.3d 773 (9th Cir.2014) (en banc), addresses the question of whether a conviction under California Penal Code § 245(a)(1) is categorically a crime of moral turpitude. It does not address the question of whether a conviction under § 245(a)(1) is categorically a crime of violence. As such, it does not abrogate Grajeda's holding that a conviction under § 245(a)(1) is categorically a crime of violence.

References: § 245
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 245
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 245
 § 245
 § 245