U.S. Supreme Court 06-06-11
From OCDLA Library of Defense
< Blog:Case Reviews(Difference between revisions)
by: Grapkoch • June 5, 2011 • no comments
(Importing text file) |
(Importing text file) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | Read the full article for details about the following new cases: | |
| − | * | + | * Sentencing Drug Offenders Under ACCA |
| − | + | * '''Question Presented''': Whether the plain meaning of the phrase "is prescribed by law," which the Armed Career Criminal Act uses to define a predicate "serious drug offense," requires a federal sentencing court to look to the maximum penalty prescribed by current state law for a drug offense at the time of the instant federal offense, regardless of whether the state has made that current sentencing law retroactive. | |
| + | * '''Holding''': "We hold that the 'maximum term of imprisonment' for a defendant's prior state drug offense is the maximum sentence applicable to his offense when he was convicted of it." | ||
| − | + | As my previous posts on recent SCOTUS developments may demonstrate, I usually like to engage in lengthy discussions on all points of an opinion. It makes me feel useful. However, this unanimous opinion-authored by Justice Thomas-is relatively straightforward. In fact, to the extent the formatting of this website allows me, I can summarize it in a five-point geometric proof: | |
| − | '' | + | * '''Statement #1''': ACCA looks to the "maximum term of imprisonment" that "is prescribed by law." |
| + | * '''Reason #1''': Given. | ||
| + | * '''Statement #2''': By its plain terms, ACCA's reference to "maximum term of imprisonment" looks to the historical statute of conviction. | ||
| + | * '''Reason #2''': ''United States v. Rodriguez'', 553 U.S. 377 (2008) (looking to the historical statute of conviction in determining whether "maximum term of imprisonment" includes recidivism enhancements). | ||
| + | * '''Statement #3''': "Use of the present tense in the definition of 'serious drug offense' does not suggest otherwise." | ||
| + | * '''Reason #3''': "ACCA is concerned with convictions that have already occurred." | ||
| + | * '''Statement #4''': Furthermore, the phrase "maximum tern of imprisonment" cannot be interpreted to reference the current statutory text because that would mean that "a prior conviction could 'disappear' entirely for ACCA purposes if a State reformulated the offense between the defendant's state conviction and federal sentencing." | ||
| + | * '''Reason #4''': United States v. Wilson, 503 U. S. 329, 334 (1992) ("[A]bsurd results are to be avoided"). | ||
| + | * '''Statement #5''': "Maximum term of imprisonment" refers to the punishment prescribed at the time of conviction. | ||
| + | * '''Reason #5''': SAS postulate (2, 3, 4) | ||
| − | + | At least I think that follows the basic structure of a proof, but geometry was never really my thing. More information can be found at the SCOTUSblog case page, [http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/mcneill-clifton-t-v-united-states/ available here]. | |
| − | + | [http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/10-5258.pdf ''McNeill v. United States''] | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | '' | + | |
{{wl-publish: 2011-06-05 21:00:00 -0700 | grapkoch }} | {{wl-publish: 2011-06-05 21:00:00 -0700 | grapkoch }} | ||
Revision as of 19:02, December 21, 2012
Read the full article for details about the following new cases:
- Sentencing Drug Offenders Under ACCA
- Question Presented: Whether the plain meaning of the phrase "is prescribed by law," which the Armed Career Criminal Act uses to define a predicate "serious drug offense," requires a federal sentencing court to look to the maximum penalty prescribed by current state law for a drug offense at the time of the instant federal offense, regardless of whether the state has made that current sentencing law retroactive.
- Holding: "We hold that the 'maximum term of imprisonment' for a defendant's prior state drug offense is the maximum sentence applicable to his offense when he was convicted of it."
As my previous posts on recent SCOTUS developments may demonstrate, I usually like to engage in lengthy discussions on all points of an opinion. It makes me feel useful. However, this unanimous opinion-authored by Justice Thomas-is relatively straightforward. In fact, to the extent the formatting of this website allows me, I can summarize it in a five-point geometric proof:
- Statement #1: ACCA looks to the "maximum term of imprisonment" that "is prescribed by law."
- Reason #1: Given.
- Statement #2: By its plain terms, ACCA's reference to "maximum term of imprisonment" looks to the historical statute of conviction.
- Reason #2: United States v. Rodriguez, 553 U.S. 377 (2008) (looking to the historical statute of conviction in determining whether "maximum term of imprisonment" includes recidivism enhancements).
- Statement #3: "Use of the present tense in the definition of 'serious drug offense' does not suggest otherwise."
- Reason #3: "ACCA is concerned with convictions that have already occurred."
- Statement #4: Furthermore, the phrase "maximum tern of imprisonment" cannot be interpreted to reference the current statutory text because that would mean that "a prior conviction could 'disappear' entirely for ACCA purposes if a State reformulated the offense between the defendant's state conviction and federal sentencing."
- Reason #4: United States v. Wilson, 503 U. S. 329, 334 (1992) ("[A]bsurd results are to be avoided").
- Statement #5: "Maximum term of imprisonment" refers to the punishment prescribed at the time of conviction.
- Reason #5: SAS postulate (2, 3, 4)
At least I think that follows the basic structure of a proof, but geometry was never really my thing. More information can be found at the SCOTUSblog case page, available here.
