These summaries are not intended as legal advice. Please contact a licensed attorney to discuss the specifics of your case.
Viewing entries tagged
CA crimes
On remand from the Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit reversed its precedent, and concluded that a California conviction for dissuading a witness matches the definition of an obstruction of justice aggravated felony. In so doing, the court rejected an argument that the California mens rea is broader than the federal mens rea.
The full text of Cordero-Garcia v. Garland can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/06/27/19-72779.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has determined that a California conviction for forgery is categorically a crime involving moral turpitude because it requires an intent to defraud.
The full text of Vasquez-Borjas v. Garland can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/06/06/17-70867.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has determined that a California conviction for inflicting corporal injury on a child is a crime of violence because the statute requires proof that the punishment or injury inflicted on the child resulted in a traumatic condition.
The full text of Olea-Serefina v. Garland can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/05/19/20-72231.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has determined that a California conviction for child endangerment in violation of Penal Code 273A(a) is not a crime of child abuse.
The full text of Diaz-Rodriguez v. Garland can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/09/10/13-73719.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has determined that California Health and Safety Code section 11350 is overbroad and divisible with respect to the identity of the controlled substance.
The full text of Lazo v. Wilkinson can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/02/26/14-73182.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has declined to apply the retroactive reduction of the maximum misdemeanor sentence in California in immigration proceedings. “It is clear that federal statutes can specify when removal is permissible and also when a cancellation of removal is warranted. We hold that those federal law standards cannot be altered or contradicted retroactively by state law actions, and cannot be manipulated after the fact by state laws modifying sentences that at the time of conviction permitted removal or that precluded cancellation. We hold that California’s amendment to § 18.5 of the California Penal Code, which retroactively reduces the maximum misdemeanor sentence to 364 days for purposes of state law, cannot be applied retroactively for purposes of § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i).”
The full text of Velasquez-Rios v. Barr can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/10/28/18-72990.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has determined that “when conducting a categorical analysis for removability based upon a state criminal conviction, it is proper to compare drug schedules at the time of the petitioner’s underlying criminal offense, not at the time of the petitioner’s removal.” Thus, the federal government’s removal of hemp from the definition of marijuana in 2018 does not benefit an individual convicted of a California state marijuana offense prior to the change in federal law.
The full text of Medina-Rodriguez v. Barr can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/10/30/19-72681.pdf
The Eighth Circuit has determined that a California conviction for criminal threats is a crime of violence for federal sentencing purposes because it “necessarily include[s] a threatened use of physical force ‘capable of causing physical pain or injury to another person.’”
The full text of United States v. Doran can be found here:
The Ninth Circuit has determined that a conviction for assault with a deadly weapon or assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury is a crime involving moral turpitude. In so doing, the court has deferred to the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision in Matter of Wu.
The full text of Safaryan v. Barr can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/09/17/16-74039.pdf
