Recidivist Enhancements after Descamps PowerPoint
Download
Report
Transcript Recidivist Enhancements after Descamps PowerPoint
Brett G. Sweitzer
Assistant Federal Defender
Chief of Appeals
Federal Community Defender Office, E.D. Pa.
When Does this Come Up?
Most common situations:
•
∫ 2K2.1:
∫ 4B1.1
crime of violence
controlled substance offense
•
∫ 2L1.2:
drug trafficking offense
crime of violence
firearms offense
alien smuggling offense
aggravated felony
When Does this Come Up?
Most common situations:
•
18 U.S.C. ∫ 924(e): violent felony
∫ 4B1.4 serious drug offense
[priors do not time-out]
•
8 U.S.C. ∫ 1326(b): aggravated felony
Quick Review
Was defendant convicted of ___________?
·
focus is on the statute of conviction
NOT
Did defendant commit ____________?
·
focus is on the conduct
• Admissions to qualifying conduct are irrelevant
(even in PSRs– but don’t do it)!
• “Of course he did it” is irrelevant
Quick Review
Formal Categorical Approach
·
look to statutory definition, not facts
·
elements and nature of statute of
conviction
·
is statute broader than generic crime in
enhancement provision? (“least
culpable”)
-if yes: never a predicate
-if no: always a predicate
Quick Review
Modified Categorical Approach
·
WHEN DO WE GO THERE?
NOT whenever the statute is
overbroad
-MCA is not about mining the
Shepard documents for evidence of
conduct or “basis of conviction”
-Rather, it’s about identifying the
statute of conviction
Quick Review
Modified Categorical Approach
·
WHEN DO WE GO THERE?
ONLY when:
(1)
statute is divisible into alternative
elements and judgment has general
reference
OR
(2)
enhancement provision “invites
further inquiry”
Quick Review
Modified Categorical Approach
·
WHAT IS IT?
look at Shepard/Taylor documents to see if
defendant was necessarily convicted of
generic crime in enhancement provision
NOT to see what defendant “actually did”
Quick Review
Modified Categorical Approach
•
WHAT ARE THE SHEPARD DOCS?
TRIAL:
(1)
PLUS
(2)
charging document
-information/indictment
-maybe criminal complaint, but
not applications and the like
jury instructions
Quick Review
Modified Categorical Approach
•
WHAT ARE THE SHEPARD DOCS?
PLEA:
PLUS
(1)
(2)
(3)
charging document
plea agreement/colloquy
OR
other comparable judicial records of
sufficient reliability
Quick Review
Modified Categorical Approach
•
WHAT ARE THE SHEPARD DOCS?
The “Comparable Records” Loophole:
--limited to judicial docs
--never a certification requirement
--DP standard
• dockets/sent records
• ONLY for SOC, NOT FACTS!
Step One
Identify the Enhancement Provision
∙ “has as an element . . .”
∙ enumerated offenses
MUST DETERMINE GENERIC VERSION
-- CL, MPC, majority state law, and
analogous federal law
∙ residual provisions
-- comparative analysis (Begay/Sykes)
Common Step-One Mistakes
“Burglary” = “Burglary”: Failure to Go Generic
EXAMPLE: 2L1.2 COV
• generic “statutory rape”: under 16 y/o; 4-yr delta
“That’s risky”: Failure to compare (purposeful/viol)
EXAMPLE: 4B1.2 COV
∙ reckless/negl simple assault
Step Two
Identify the ELEMENTS of the statute of conviction,
and determine if offense is broader than
defined/generic offense
•
•
identify SOC from conviction record or
through modified categorical approach if
general reference to divisible statute
is there a way to violate statute that would
not violate generic offense? (“least culpable”)
-- may be obvious from text of statute or
may need to look at state case law (Remember:
use the version of the stat in effect when
prior committed!)
Common Step-Two Mistakes
• Using modified categorical approach to determine
what defendant did, rather than to identify SOC
• Misreading statute/statutory scheme
EXAMPLES:
• failing to review expansive stat language
• failing to look at definitional sections
• failing to look at immigration cases and other
jurisdictions
Holding of Descamps
133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013)
• MCA applies ONLY to “divisible” statutes, and
ONLY to determine which division of the statute
defendant was convicted under
∙ MCA DOES NOT apply to overbroad statutes, or to
those missing an element of the defined/generic
offense altogether
∙ MCA is tool for implementing CA, not invitation to
consider whatever facts are in Shepard documents
Impact of Descamps
Gov’t: None! Third Cir always limited MCA to divisible
statutes
Actually: New definition of “divisible”
Old Divisibility: divisible = written in the disjunctive
(list or outline form)
-- PA burglary’s “building or occupied structure”
-- PA simple assault’s “intentional, knowing, or
reckless” bodily injury
Impact of Descamps
Actually: New definition of “divisible”
New Divisibility: divisible = separable into
alternative elements
-- Determined as a matter of the substantive
law of the jurisdiction of conviction
-- Disjunctive statutes NOT divisible if the things
listed are simply alternative means of satisfying a
single element, rather than alternative elements
-- TEST: whether juror unanimity required
Means or Elements?
How to tell the difference
(1) Look at charging document
-- if charges whole list, they are means and MCA
does not apply (Descamps FN 2)
-- doesn’t matter what D admits
(2) If charging document narrows list, look at
governing substantive law regarding
submission to jury and juror unanimity
Post-Descamps Cases
• Third Circuit is Adrift
The Good:
∙ US v. Jones, 740 F.3d 127 (3d Cir. 2014)
-- recognizes MCA use may need to be
narrowed in Third Cir
∙ Rojas v. Att’y Gen., 728 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2013)
-- MCA does not fill factual gaps
∙ Bautista v. Att’y Gen., 744 F.3d 54 (3d Cir. 2014)
-- no alt elements in disjunctive NY arson
Post-Descamps Cases
• Third Circuit is Adrift
The Bad:
∙ US v. Marrero, 743 F.3d 389 (3d Cir. 2014)
-- PA simple assault divisible because
disjunctive
-- looks to plea colloquy for facts
-- PFR en banc den’d; PFC forthcoming
The Neutral:
∙ US v. Abbott, 748 F.3d 154 (3d Cir. 2014)
-- PA PWID divisible because Apprendi element
and charging document specified cocaine