Ninth Circuit finds that CA Carjacking Conviction is not Crime of Violence

The Ninth Circuit has determined that has a California conviction for carjacking is not a crime of violence aggravated felony. “On a plain reading, section 215 defines carjacking more broadly than section 16(a) by not requiring the use of force.” The court further concluded that the use of fear required by the statute does not necessarily include the use of force. The court additionally concluded that the statute requires only a reckless mens rea, which is less than is necessary to match the definition of a crime of violence. “In sum, section 215 criminalizes carjacking committed through fear and without the use of force, as well as carjacking committed through the unintentional use of force.” The court further determined the statute is not divisible.

The full of Gutierrez v. Garland can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/07/02/21-130.pdf

Ninth Circuit finds that CA Carjacking is not a Theft Aggravated Felony

The Ninth Circuit has determined that a California conviction for carjacking does not include the requisite intent to steal to be considered a theft aggravated felony. “[A]n individual can be convicted of violating California’s carjacking statute even if they take a car from someone who has an inferior possessory interest in the car—or none at all.” The court also concluded that the statute is not divisible.

The full text of US v. Orozco-Orozco can be found here:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/03/12/22-50146.pdf

BIA Concludes that CA Carjacking Conviction is COV

The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined - applying the Supreme Court’s decision in Stokeling - that a California carjacking conviction qualifies as a crime of violence.

The full text of Matter of A. Valenzuela can be found here:

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1449661/download

Ninth Circuit Overrules Prior Precedent Regarding Carjacking

The Ninth Circuit has overruled its decision in Solorio-Ruiz v. Sessions, which held that a California conviction for carjacking is not a crime of violence, in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Stokeling v. United States. The Supreme Court’s “clarification of ‘violent force’ (any force sufficient to overcome a victim’s physical resistance) is ‘clearly irreconcilable with our reasoning in Solorio-Ruiz. Our opinion rested on the analytical distinction between substantial and minimal force. This distinction no longer exists.”

The full text of U.S. v. Baldon can be found here:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/04/21/18-10411.pdf

Ninth Circuit Finds that CA Carjacking Conviction is not Crime of Violence

The Ninth Circuit has determined that a California carjacking conviction is not a crime of violence because it does not require the use of violent force.  The Court overruled its prior decision in Nieves-Medrano v. Holder that had held a carjacking conviction is a crime of violence.  The case was remanded to allow the Board of Immigration Appeals to decide in the first instance if the conviction qualified as a theft offense aggravated felony.

The full text of Solorio-Ruiz v. Sessions can be found here:

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/01/29/16-73085.pdf

Ninth Circuit Finds that Carjacking Conviction is a Crime of Violence

The Ninth Circuit has determined that a federal conviction for carjacking is a crime of violence under the federal sentencing guidelines.  "To be guilty of carjacking 'by intimidation,' the defendant must take a motor vehicle through conduct that would put an ordinary, reasonable person in fear of bodily harm, which necessarily entails the threatened use of violent physical force.  It is particularly clear that 'intimidation' in the federal carjacking statute requires a contemporaneous threat to use force that satisfies Johnson because the statute requires that the defendant act with “the intent to cause death or serious bodily harm.'”

The full text of US v. Gutierrez can be found here:

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/12/12/16-35583.pdf