Matthew Descamps was convicted in 2008 of being a felon in possession of a handgun and ammunition under federal law, which usually leads to a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison. But a federal trial judge in Washington State more than doubled that sentence to 21 years and 10 months under the Armed Career Criminal Act.
Connect With Us on Twitter
For Op-Ed, follow @nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow @andyrNYT.
That federal statute imposes a minimum sentence of 15 years and a maximum of life for a felon who commits a crime with a gun after three prior convictions for violent felonies. The judge concluded that Mr. Descamps's previous conviction for burglary under California law should count as one of the three felonies.
Mr. Descamps appealed the sentence, arguing that the burglary should not be counted against him because the state law does not involve illegal entry into a building (a person could be convicted of burglary even if he legally entered the premises) and the Supreme Court has said that a burglary conviction under the Armed Career Criminal Act has to involve "basic elements," including an illegal entry. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed his sentence.
In Descamps v. United States, which the Supreme Court heard this week, Mr. Descamps makes a persuasive argument that the trial judge should not have disregarded the California's definition of burglary to fit the Armed Career Criminal Act. Trial judges can look at certain documents, like a defendant's plea agreement, to figure out whether a state crime involved the basic elements required under the federal statute. But they cannot fish for facts to match such elements if they aren't included in the state's definition of the crime, as the judge did in this case.
During the oral argument, the justices sometimes sounded frustrated by this approach. Justice Elena Kagan pointed out that it means that any conviction under California's burglary law would not qualify as a prior crime. But given what is at stake, it's only right that state convictions be carefully considered if they are used under the federal statute to lengthen criminal sentences.
Anda sedang membaca artikel tentang
Editorial: When Burglary Is Not Burglary
Dengan url
http://opinimasyarakota.blogspot.com/2013/01/editorial-when-burglary-is-not-burglary.html
Anda boleh menyebar luaskannya atau mengcopy paste-nya
Editorial: When Burglary Is Not Burglary
namun jangan lupa untuk meletakkan link
Editorial: When Burglary Is Not Burglary
sebagai sumbernya
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar