United States v. Swopes, No. 16-1797 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseThe Eighth Circuit held that the district court properly classified defendant's second degree robbery conviction in violation of Missouri law as a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e). The court overruled the panel decision to the contrary in United States v. Bell, 840 F.3d 963 (8th Cir. 2016). In this case, the text of the Missouri second degree robbery statute requires proof that a defendant used physical force or threatened the immediate use of physical force. Missouri decisions applying the statute showed that physical force under the Missouri statute was the equivalent of physical force within the meaning of the ACCA.
Court Description: Colloton, Author, for the Court En Banc] Criminal case - Sentencing. Defendant's conviction for second-degree robbery counted as a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act. The text of the Missouri second-degree robbery statute - Mo. Rev. Stat. Sections 569.030.1 and 569.010(1)(1979) - requires proof that a defendant used physical force or threatened the use of physical force; Missouri decisions applying the statute show that physical force under the Missouri statute is the equivalent of physical force within the meaning of the ACCA; based on the data available, the court sees no realistic probability that the Missouri courts would apply the statute to conduct that does not involve force that is capable of causing physical pain or injury. The three-judge panel in the case did not pass on the question of whether defendant's prior conviction for unlawful use of a weapon in violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 571.030.1(4) qualified as a violent felony, and the court en banc returns that issue to the panel for resolution. Judge Kelly, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on March 10, 2017.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.