Almazan-Becerra held a court could consider a set of police reports which a defense attorney stipulated could be considered as a factual basis for the plea. That’s a case (which I actually mentioned in the first Descamps post) called United States v. There’s also another Ninth Circuit case – or line of cases – that I think we can argue are “clearly irreconcilable” with Descamps as explained and applied in Marcia-Acosta and Sahagun-Gallegos. Gammie “clearly irreconcilable” test for overruling prior Ninth Circuit precedent based on intervening Supreme Court case law that I’ve mentioned in prior posts see, for example, the post titled, “What Fury Hath Descamps Wrought?” in the August 2013 link at the right or the post titled, “Who Gets to Decide When Two or Three Convictions Are Just One?” in the February 2015 link at the right.) Marcia-Acosta held this was “the very type of ‘fact-based’ analysis that Descamps proscribes” and Smith “therefore is ‘clearly irreconcilable’ with Descamps, and is no longer controlling.” Marcia-Acosta, 780 F.3d at 1254 (quoting Miller v. In Smith, the court had relied on a statement made by a prosecutor during a plea hearing that a burglary defendant had “unlawfully” entered “a dwelling.” Marcia-Acosta, 780 F.3d at 1253 (quoting Smith, 390 F.3d at 663, 665).
One of the cases the government cited in Marcia-Acosta was United States v. Marcia-Acosta actually expressly recognized this as to one prior Ninth Circuit case.
(See “The Rest of My Own Little Supreme Court Update” in the July 2013 link at the right.) But another thing I suggested in that first post is that Descamps’ creation or clarification of these limits raised doubt about the viability of prior Ninth Circuit cases that had been overly liberal in their view of the records which can be used. That post suggested Descamps created new limits – or, perhaps more accurately, clarified the limits – on not just when court records could be used under the modified categorical approach, but also how they could be used. 2015) (yes, Sahagun-Gallegos has an F.3d cite now), I also noted my very first post on Descamps. In last week’s post discussing the cases of United States v. Using these documents is inconsistent with Marcia-Acosta and Sahagun-Gallegos because (a) the defendant usually hasn’t personally assented to any particular facts contained in the documents and (b) the documents don’t identify elements as opposed to facts.2008), which allow the use of police reports and other documents often stipulated to as the factual basis in California state court pleas. The cases which may no longer be good law include cases like United States v.The limits on how court records can be used under the modified categorical approach that are recognized in the Marcia-Acosta and Sahagun-Gallegos cases discussed in last week’s post suggest prior Ninth Circuit cases permitting broader use aren’t good law after Descamps.
Unconstitutional Jail / Prison Conditions.Non-Law Enforcement Violation of Constitutional Rights.Mental Health Care / Suicide Prevention.
0 kommentar(er)
