In an opinion called Descamps v. United States, No. 11-9540 (June 20, 2013), the Supreme Court changed the way that certain convictions are handled under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). Under ACCA, people who commit crimes with firearms get a harsher punishment on their third "violent felony" or "serious drug crime" conviction. ACCA has a minimum term of fifteen years, and a maximum of life.
However, it's often difficult to tell what qualifies as a "violent felony," because each state gets to define its own crimes. Judges have struggled with this for a while, resulting in a long string of court opinions on the topic.
In this case, Mr. Descamps was convicted of burglary in California before being accused of shooting a truck to scare the person inside. According to the previous interpretation of ACCA, his burglary would be considered a "violent felony." This meant he would receive harsher penalties upon being convicted of the new crime, which would be his third qualifying felony.
However, the California definition of burglary is less strict than ACCA's definition of burglary. This means that some minor behavior (like shoplifting) could result in a burglary conviction under California law, but not meet the definition of burglary for ACCA. The court determined that Mr. Descamps was not guilty of a "violent felony" when he committed his burglary, and overturned his ACCA conviction.
Even though this case concerns federal criminal sentencing under ACCA, it is possible that the principles will be applied to the analysis of "crimes of violence" for aggravated felonies,
and "crimes of moral turpitude" in the immigration context.
If you have questions about how a criminal conviction might affect your immigration status, or if you are facing court proceedings in immigration or criminal court, please contact Glickman Turley LLP to see if we can help.
For more information about the Descamps case, click here.
