![]() Most often, the crime “intended” to be committed once inside the vehicle is the criminal offense of “theft.” However, Florida law allows a Pinellas County prosecutor to charge “Burglary to a Conveyance” in connection with other types of criminal offenses. In concluding, the Supreme Court conceded that Deschamps may have broken and entered the grocery store at issue and consequently committed burglary as envisioned as a predicate offense for a sentence enhancement under the ACCA - but a conviction of violating Penal Code § 459 does not qualify as a crime of violence for the ACCA.Burglary to a conveyance is the legal description in Florida of a criminal offense more commonly referred to as an “auto burglary.” Under Florida Statute Section 810.02, the prosecutor must prove that you “entered” the conveyance with the intent to commit a crime once inside. When assessed in light of these reasons, “the Ninth Circuit’s ruling strikes out swinging” wrote Justice Kagan. Moreover, the factual approach used by the Ninth Circuit has practical difficulties and potential unfairness to a defendant. ![]() The Supreme Court specifically rejected the Ninth Circuit’s consideration of the colloquy at the plea in making findings of fact because making findings of fact properly belongs to a jury. ![]() ![]() Furthermore, Justice Kagan wrote, “if the statute sweeps more broadly than the generic crime, a conviction under the law cannot count as an ACCA predicate, even if the defendant actually committed the offense in its generic form.” She continued, “here, § 459 does not fit that bill because California defines burglary so broadly as to include shoplifting.” Taylor, at 591. Supreme Court found, Penal Code § 459 was broader then generic burglary. 575, which adapted a “formal categorical approach.” Sentencing courts may “look only to the statutory definitions,” for example, the elements of a defendant’s prior offenses, and “not to the particular facts underlying those convictions." Taylor, at 600. Therefore, the ACCA enhancement was inapplicable. The Supreme Court found that, in looking at Penal Code § 459, there was no requirement of violence. The practical consequences of this were that it saved Deschamps at least a five year sentence enhancement under the ACCA. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s rulings, ruling in favor of Mr. The Ninth Circuit found looking at the plea colloquy was proper. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit then affirmed this ruling when Mr. The District Court thus easily and readily concluded that Deschamps’ conduct was a violent felony under the ACCA. The District Court pointed to the transcript of the state court plea, wherein the prosecutor stated that Deschamps’ conduct involved the “breaking and entering of a grocery store” and Deschamps did not object. District Court hearing Deschamps’ argument disagreed. For example, § 459 can be applied to a shoplifter. He argued that California’s § 459 statute does not require the entry to be by force or by breaking and entering as most states’ burglary statutes require. § 922 (e)(2)(B).ĭeschamps argued that his conviction for violating Penal Code § 459 could not count as a predicate offense to satisfy the ACCA. The ACCA defines a “violent felony” as “any felony, whether state or federal, that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another, or that is burglary, arson or extortion, involves the use of explosives, or otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.” 18 U.S.C. If the court were to agree with the prosecution, Deschamps would be sentenced to a minimum of fifteen years. The prosecution sought to enhance Deschamps’ sentence, arguing that Deschamps’ prior conviction for violating Penal Code § 459 qualified as a violent felony. Deschamps had prior convictions for robbery, felony harassment and burglary under California Penal Code § 459 (“Commercial Burglary”). Without any enhancements, the offense carries a maximum sentence of ten years. To determine whether a past conviction is a “violent felony,” courts use a “categorical approach.” In the case of Michael Deschamps, he was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. Overview: Prior burglary conviction not a predicate offense to enhance defendant’s federal sentence for felon in possession of firearm. The federal Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) increases the sentence of those federal defendants who have three prior convictions “for a violent felony or a drug offense” which includes “burglary, arson or extortion.”
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |