These summaries are not intended as legal advice. Please contact a licensed attorney to discuss the specifics of your case.
Viewing entries tagged
violent felony
The Fourth Circuit has determined that a Virginia conviction for common law robbery does not qualify as a violent felony because it does not include an element of the use of violent force. Instead, it can be committed by threatening to accuse the robbery victim of committing sodomy.
The full text of US v. Williams can be found here:
The Eighth Circuit has determined that an Iowa conviction for willful injury is a violent felony because it requires the serious injury, which includes disabling mental illness. The court also determined that Illinois armed robbery statute requires a mens rea greater than recklessness.
The full text of US v. Bragg can be found here:
The Eighth Circuit has determined that the Minnesota first-degree burglary statute is overbroad compared to the definition of a violent felony, but that the subsection criminalizing burglary with assault is a violent felony.
The full text of US v. Fisher can be found here:
https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/22/02/212151P.pdf
The Eighth Circuit has determined that a Nebraska conviction for terroristic threats is not a violent felony because it encompasses reckless conduct.
The full text of US v. Williams can be found here:
https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/22/02/203311P.pdf
The Eighth Circuit has rejected a defendant’s argument that a Minnesota conviction for attempted second-degree murder is not a violent felony because it encompasses reckless conduct, finding that one cannot attempt to commit reckless conduct.
The full text of US v. Matthews can be found here:
The Eighth Circuit has determined that a Texas conviction for aggravated assault is not a violent felony because it encompasses reckless conduct. “Everyone agrees that the Texas law in question defines a single, indivisible offense that can be committed under any of three mental states—intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly.”
The full text of United States v. Hoxworth can be found here: https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/21/08/191562P.pdf
The Supreme Court has determined that a reckless offense does not qualify as a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). Because the definition of a violent felony under the ACCA and a crime of violence under the INA are often treated interchangeably, this decision should be applicable in immigration proceedings.
The full text of Borden v. United States can be found here:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-5410_8nj9.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has determined that a Minnesota conviction for aiding and abetting simple robbery is a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) because the statute requires the defendant to use the amount of force necessary to overcome a victim’s resistance. Given the similarity between the definition of a violent felony under the ACCA and a crime of violence in the immigration context, this decision could have persuasive value in immigration litigation.
The full text of Ward v. United States can be found here:
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2019/09/03/17-35563.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has determined that an Oregon conviction for first-degree armed robbery is not a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) because the statute does not require the defendant to overcome resistance by the victim through the use of force, but rather, the victim need not feel much of anything during the offense. In addition, although the statute requires the defendant to possess a deadly weapon during the commission of the robbery, the statute does not require the use of the weapon or that the defendant make any representations about the weapon. As such, the court found that the mere possession of the deadly weapon did not amount to the threatened or attempted use of violent force.
The court also assumed that the statute is divisible between offenses where the defendant “Is armed with a deadly weapon” and offenses where the defendant “uses or attempts to use a dangerous weapon.” The records did not specify under which sub-statute the petitioner was convicted in this matter.
Given the similarity between the definition of a violent felony under the ACCA and the definition of a crime of violence in the immigration context, this case may have persuasive value in immigration litigation.
The full text of United States v. Shelby can be found here:
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2019/09/19/18-35515.pdf
The Eighth Circuit has determined that an Arkansas conviction for first degree terrorist threatening is divisible between threats of injury and threats to property. Applying the modified categorical approach, the court determined that a conviction for threats of serious injury is a violent felony.
The full text of United States v. Myers can be found here:
The Eighth Circuit has reaffirmed, in light of recent Supreme Court precedent, that a Minnesota conviction for simple robbery is a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). Given the similar definition of a violent felony under the ACCA and a crime of violence in the immigration context, this decision could have persuasive value in the immigration context.
The full text of Taylor v. United States can be found here:
The Ninth Circuit has determined that aggravated assault under Arizona Revised Statute § 13-1203(A)(1) no longer qualifies as a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). Given the similarity between the definition of a violent felony under the ACCA and a crime of violence aggravated felony, this case could have persuasive impact in the immigration context.
The full text of United States v. Orona can be found here:
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2019/05/10/17-17508.pdf
The Eighth Circuit has determined that an Arkansas kidnapping statute does not qualify as a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act because it does require the use of physical force. The court also determined that the statute is indivisible. Because the definition of a violent felony is similar to definition of a crime of violence in the immigration law, this case may hav persuasive effect in immigration cases.
The full text of U.S. v. Coleman can be found here:
The Supreme Court has determined that Florida’s robbery statute qualifies as a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). The Court determined that violent felonies encompass “robbery offenses that require the criminal to overcome the victim’s resistance.”
The force necessary to overcome a victim’s physical resistance is inherently violent and suggests “a degree of power that would not be satisfied by the merest touching.” “This is true because robbery that must overpower a victim’s will—even a feeble or weak-willed victim—necessarily involves a physical confrontation and struggle. The altercation need not cause pain or injury or even be prolonged; it is the physical contest between the criminal and the victim that is itself ‘capable of causing physical pain or injury.”
Given the similarity between the definition of the definition of a crime of violence in the immigration context and a violent felony under the ACCA, this decision could have persuasive impact in the immigration context.
The full text of Stokeling v. United States can be found here:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-5554_4gdj.pdf
The Eighth Circuit determined that the Arkansas statute criminalizing terroristic threats is divisible between making threats against a person and making threats against property, and then determined that the petitioner's conviction for threatening his girlfriend qualified as a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). In addition, a second-degree battery conviction, under the non-deadly weapon subsection, qualifies as a violent felony because it requires the infliction of serious physical injury, thus mandating the use of physical force. Given the similar definitions of a violent felony under the ACCA and the definition of a crime of violence in the immigration context, this decision could have persuasive value in the immigration context.
The full text of United States v. Myers can be found here:
The Eighth Circuit has determined that a Minnesota conviction for second-degree assault is a violent felony even though the statute does not require the defendant to cause actual bodily harm but only fear of bodily harm. The Court also rejected a void-for-vagueness challenge to the force clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act.
The full text of US v. Pendleton can be found here:
The Eighth Circuit has determined that a Minnesota conviction for third-degree assault qualifies as a violent felony because it requires the use, attempted use, or threatened use of force capable of causing physical pain or injury.
The full text of US v. Wadena can be found here:
The Eighth Circuit has determined that Arkansas convictions for third degree domestic battery and first degree battery are violent felonies because they require the use of violent force. Given the similar definitions of violent felonies and crimes of violence in the immigration context, this decision could have persuasive value in the immigration context.
The full text of US v. Eason can be found here:
The Eighth Circuit has determined that an Arkansas conviction for aggravated assault on a family member is a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) because it requires the use of violent force. Given the similarity between the definition of a violent felony under the ACCA and the definition of a crime of violence in the immigration context, this case could have persuasive value in the immigration context.
The full text of US v. Pyles can be found here:
The Eighth Circuit has determined that a conviction for burglary in North Dakota (which includes burglary of both vehicles and structures) is overbroad and indivisible with respect to the generic definition of burglary. As such, it does not qualify as a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). Given the similar definitions of generic burglary under the ACCA and a burglary aggravated felony, this case could have persuasive value in the immigration context.
The full text of US v. Kinney can be found here:
