brett g. sweitzer assistant federal defender chief of appeals federal community defender office,...
TRANSCRIPT
Recidivist Enhancements after Descamps
June 2014Brett G. Sweitzer
Assistant Federal DefenderChief of Appeals
Federal Community Defender Office, E.D. Pa.
When Does this Come Up?Most common situations:
• ∫ 2K2.1: crime of violence∫ 4B1.1 controlled substance
offense
• ∫ 2L1.2: drug trafficking offensecrime of violencefirearms offensealien smuggling offenseaggravated felony
When Does this Come Up?Most common situations:
• 18 U.S.C. ∫ 924(e): violent felony ∫ 4B1.4serious drug
offense[priors do not time-out]
• 8 U.S.C. ∫ 1326(b): aggravated felony
Quick ReviewWas 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 ReviewFormal 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 ReviewModified 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 ReviewModified 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 ReviewModified 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 ReviewModified Categorical Approach
• WHAT ARE THE SHEPARD DOCS?
TRIAL:
(1) charging document-- information/indictment-- maybe criminal
complaint, but not applications and the likePLUS (2) jury instructions
Quick ReviewModified Categorical Approach
• WHAT ARE THE SHEPARD DOCS?
PLEA:
(1) charging documentPLUS (2) plea agreement/colloquy
OR(3) other comparable judicial
records of sufficient reliability
Quick ReviewModified 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 OneIdentify 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 TwoIdentify 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 Descamps133 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 DescampsGov’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 DescampsActually: 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