Entries tagged with “violent felony” from Harmfulerror

Via Scotusblog:

In Johnson v. United States, the Court rules 7-2 that a "violent felony" under federal law requires the use of physical violence, thereby reversing and remanding the lower court.  Justice Scalia writes for the majority, while Justice Alito dissents, joined by Justice Thomas.  The full opinion in pdf format is here.

The case concerns a sentencing enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act, which authorizes an enhanced penalty for a person who violates 18 USC 922(g) and has three previous convictions for "a violent felony."  The government claimed that the defendant's misdemeanor conviction for simply battery qualified under the statute because the defendant had previously been convicted of another battery, so this misdemeanor offense was a felony under Florida law.  Florida defined battery as occuring when a person either "actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against his will" or "intentionally causes bodily harm to another person."  The Court found there was nothing in the record permitting the trial court to find that the defendant's conviction rested upon "striking" or "intentionally causing bodily harm" elements of the offense.  The language of the statute that permitted a conviction for "actually and intentionally touching" another, does not constitute the use of "physical force" under 18 USC 924(e)(1).  The interpretation of "physical force" is a matter of federal law, not state law, so it does not matter that the Florida Supreme Court has found that a battery is a violent offense.  The federal statute does not define "force" - the Court finds that it means the application of strength, power and violence.  The force must be capable of causing physical pain or injury to another person.

In Reed Elsevier v. Muchnick, on a 5-3 vote, the Court reverses and remands, ruling that a copyright must be registered before one may file an infringement claim, but the failure of a copyright holder to have a registration does not restrict a federal court's power to decide infringement claims involving works that are not registered.  Justice Thomas delivers the majority opinion; Justice Ginsburg concurs in part and concurs in the judgment, joined by Justices Stevens and Breyer.  Justice Sotomayor took no part in the decision.  The full opinion is here. 

In Mac's Shell Service, Inc. v. Shell Oil Products Company; Shell Oil Products Company v. Mac's Shell Service, the Court reverses in part, limiting the right of the holder of a franchise to sue after the franchise agreement is terminated.  Justice Alito writes the unanimous opinion of the Court, which is here.

Alvarez v. Smith - Whether local law enforcement agencies may seize and retain custody indefinitely of personal property without judicial or administrative review of the lawfulness of the continued detention of the property. Argument scheduled for 10/14/09

Beard v. Kindler.  Under the adequate-state-ground doctrine, does a state procedural rule like Pennsylvania's fugitive waiver rule preclude federal habeas corpus review even though the state procedural rule is discretionary?Argument scheduled for 11/2/09.

Black v. United States - Whether the "honest services" clause of 18 U.S.C. § 1346 applies in cases where the jury did not find - nor did the district court instruct them that they had to find - that the defendants "reasonably contemplated identifiable economic harm," and if the defendants' reversal claim is preserved for review after they objected to the government's request for a special verdict.

Bloate v. United States -  Whether time granted at the request of a defendant to prepare pretrial motions qualifies as "delay resulting from other proceedings concerning the defendant" and is thus excludable from the time within which trial must commence under the Speedy Trial Act of 1974, 18 U.S.C. 3161 et seq. Argument scheduled for 10/6/09.

Briscoe v. Virginia - If a state allows a prosecutor to introduce a certificate of a forensic laboratory analysis, without presenting the testimony of the analyst who prepared the certificate, does the state avoid violating the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment by providing that the accused has a right to call the analyst as his own witness?

Florida v. Powell - Must a suspect be expressly advised to his right to counsel during questioning and if so, does the failure to provide this express advice vitiate Miranda v. Arizona?  

Graham v. Florida - Whether the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishments prohibits the imprisonment of a juvenile for life without the possibility of parole as punishment for the juvenile's commission of non-homicide.Argument scheduled for 11/9/09

Hemi Group v. New York City - Whether city government meets the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act standing requirement that a plaintiff be directly injured in its "business or property" by alleging non commercial injury resulting from non payment of taxes by non litigant third parties. Argument scheduled for 11/3/09

Johnson v. United States - Whether under the federal Armed Career Criminal Act a prior state conviction for battery is in all cases a "violent felony," even when the state held that offense does not have as an element the use or threatened use of physical force.  Argument scheduled for 10/6/09  

Maryland v. Shatzer - Whether Edwards v. Arizona (1981), which bars police from initiating questioning with criminal suspects who have invoked their right to counsel, applies to an interrogation that takes place nearly three years later. Argument scheduled for 10/5/09 

McDaniel v. Brown - Nevada case - Whether, on federal habeas review, the evidence underlying the defendant's conviction for sexual assault was clearly insufficient under Jackson v. Virginia (1979).  Argument taken off calendar.

Padilla v. Kentucky - Does the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of effective assistance of counsel require a criminal defense attorney to advise a non-citizen client that pleading guilty to an aggravated felony will trigger mandatory, automatic deportation, and if that misadvice about deportation induces a guilty plea, can that misadvice amount to ineffective assistance of counsel and warrant setting aside the guilty plea? Argument scheduled for 10/13/09  

Pottawattamie County v. McGhee - Whether a prosecutor may be subjected to a civil trial and potential damages for a wrongful conviction and incarceration where the prosecutor allegedly violated a criminal defendant's "substantive due process" rights by procuring false testimony during the criminal investigation, and then introduced that same testimony against the criminal defendant at trial.  Argument scheduled for 11/4/09

Smith v. Spisak - Did the Sixth Circuit contravene AEDPA by improperly extending Mills v. Maryland [re: mitigation jury instructions in a capital case]? Argument scheduled for 10/13/09

Sullivan v. Florida - Does imposition of a life without parole sentence on a thirteen-year-old for a non-homicide violate the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, where the freakishly rare imposition of such a sentence reflects a national consensus on the reduced criminal culpability of children?  Argument scheduled for 11/9/09

United States v. Comstock - Whether Congress had the constitutional authority to enact 18 U.S.C. 4248, which authorizes court-ordered civil commitment by the federal government of (1) "sexually dangerous" persons who are already in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons, but who are coming to the end of their federal prison sentences, and (2) "sexually dangerous" persons who are in the custody of the Attorney General because they have been found mentally incompetent to stand trial.

United States v. Stevens - Is 18 U.S.C. 48, on depictions of animal cruelty, facially invalid under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment? Argument scheduled for 10/6/09

Weyhrauch v. United States - Whether, to convict a state official for depriving the public of its right to the defendant's honest services through the non-disclosure of material information, in violation of the mail-fraud statute (18 U.S.C. Sec. 1341 and 1346), the government must prove that the defendant violated a disclosure duty imposed by state law.

Wood v. Allen - Whether the state court's conclusion-that during the sentencing phase of a capital case the defense attorney's failure to present the defendant's impaired mental functioning did not constitute ineffective counsel-was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts and whether the circuit court erred in its application of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) to the review of the state court decision.  Argument scheduled for 11/4/09

This morning the United States Supreme Court issued opinions in Chambers v. United States and Jimenez v. Quarterman. 

In Chambers, the Court concludes that a state court offense of failure to report for penal confinement was not a "violent felony" under the Armed Career Criminal Act.  The federal statute defines "violent felony" in part as a crime that "involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another."  The Court holds that it is the generic crime that counts, not how the crime was committed on a particular occasion.  Under this categorical approach, failure to report for prison is not a violent felony.  The opinion is authored by Justice Breyer.  Justice Alito filed an opinion concurring in the judgment which was joined by Justice Thomas.

In Jimenez, the Court addresses AEDPA's 1 year limitation under 28 USC 2244(d) in a case where a defendant is granted an out-of-time appeal by a state court.  The Court holds that where a state court grants a criminal defendant the right to file an out-of-time direct appeal during state habeas proceedings, but before the defendant has first sought federal habeas review, his judgment is not "final" for purposes of 28 USC 2244(d)(1)(A) until the conclusion of the out-of-time direct appeal or the expiration of the time for seeking certiorari review of that appeal.  Once a state court reopens direct review of a conviction, the conviction is no longer final for 2244(d)(1)(A) purposes.  Justice Thomas authored the unanimous opinion.