These summaries are not intended as legal advice. Please contact a licensed attorney to discuss the specifics of your case.
Viewing entries tagged
Nevada crimes
The Ninth Circuit has determined that. Nevada conviction for felony battery resulting in substantial bodily harm is a crime of violence.
The full text of Villagomez v. McHenry can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/01/24/23-3558.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has determined that a Nevada conviction for attempted lewdness with a child under the age of 14 is an attempted sexual abuse of a minor aggravated felony. In so doing, the court confirmed that its Medina-Villa definition of sexual abuse (involving abusive contact with a minor) is not irreconcilable with the Supreme Court’s decision in Esquivel-Quintana (addressing when statutory rape crimes qualify as sexual abuse of a minor aggravated felonies).
The full text of Leon Perez v. Garland can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/06/28/23-204.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has determined that a Nevada drug statute is divisible with respect to the identity of the controlled substance involved in the offense.
The full text of United States v. Figueroa-Beltran can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/04/27/16-10388.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has determined that a Nevada conviction for attempted battery with substantial bodily harm is a crime of violence under the sentencing guidelines because it requires the defendant to have a specific intent both to commit battery and to bring about substantial bodily harm. Nevada defines “substantial bodily harm” as either “(1) [b]odily injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious, permanent disfigurement or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ; or (2) [p]rolonged physical pain.”
“When someone intends to inflict prolonged pain, even relatively minor pain, it is highly improbable that they would choose to do so through the use of nonviolent force, which could easily fail to accomplish their goal. And for the same reason, it is equally improbable that Nevada prosecutors would be able to secure convictions for attempted battery with substantial bodily harm in cases in which the defendant tried to use only a touch or other nonviolent force.”
Given the similar definitions of a crime of violence under the sentencing guidelines and in immigration law, this decision could have persuasive impact in immigration litigation.
The full text of United States v. Fitzgerald can be found here:
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2019/08/26/18-10116.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has determined that a Nevada conviction for battery with a deadly weapon qualifies as a crime of violence. The court noted that “even the least touching with a deadly weapon or instrument is violent in nature.” The statute at issue prohibits “any willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon the person of another . . . committed with the use of a deadly weapon . . . [that results in] [n]o substantial bodily harm to the victim.” To commit simple battery in Nevada, the “force need not be violent or severe and need not cause bodily pain or bodily harm.” As a result, simple battery in Nevada would not ordinarily be a crime of violence under Johnson’s definition of “physical force.” However, “even the least touching with a deadly weapon or instrument is violent in nature,” because it “demonstrates at a minimum the threatened use of actual force.” Thus, if Nevada law requires actual use of a truly “deadly” weapon, then it is a crime of violence.
”As early as 1870, the Nevada Supreme Court defined objects as ‘deadly weapons’ if they satisfied either the inherently dangerous or the functional test.” Under the inherently dangerous test, a deadly weapon is any instrument that “if used in the ordinary manner contemplated by its design and construction, will, or is likely to, cause a life-threatening injury or death.” Under the functional test, a deadly weapon is any instrumentality that is “used in a deadly manner.” Under these definitions, the Court concluded that any use of a deadly weapon would qualify as a crime of violence.
The Ninth Circuit rejected the argument that a defendant could be convicted for mere possession of a deadly weapon during a battery, as opposed to the actual use of a deadly weapon.
The full text of US v. Guizar-Rodriguez can be found here:
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/08/17/16-10507.pdf
