In United States v. Baldon, --- F.3d ---, No. 18-10411 (9th Cir. 2020), the Court vacated the defendant's sentence, holding that carjacking under Cal. P.C. 215 is not a categorical crime of violence under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(e).
But wait, you might ask, wasn't that already the law in the 9th? Yes. But the prior case reaching that conclusion, Solorio-Ruiz v. Sessions,
881 F.3d 733 (9th Cir. 2018), is no longer good law, says the panel.
"In Solorio-Ruiz, we relied on Johnson v. United States,
559 U.S. 133 (2010), to conclude that carjacking under
section 215 was not a crime of violence." The panel then concludes, "Solorio-Ruiz is clearly
irreconcilable with the Supreme Court’s decision in
Stokeling v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 544 (2019)."
Specifically, the panel concludes that Stokeling changed the definition of violent force: "This clarification of 'violent force' (any force sufficient
to overcome a victim’s physical resistance) is 'clearly
irreconcilable' with our reasoning in Solorio-Ruiz."
Ultimately, however, the result does not change because "section 215 may
be violated through fear of injury to property alone, without
any fear of injury to a person, and therefore, the statute 'criminalizes a broader range of conduct than the federal
definition captures." As such, it remains overbroad (and also indivisible).
So, following this decision, the reasoning is different, but P.C. 215 is still not a CoV.
