Judgment Day

With all the [continued] Baze publicity, going largely unnoticed was the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision this week to grant cert in Chambers v. U.S. (06-11206). Just five days after the Court ruled in Begay v. U.S., the Supremes decided they will again interpret the “otherwise” clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act's 15-year mandatory minimum sentence.

Recall at issue in Begay was whether felony DUI is a "violent felony" for purposes of the ACCA’s 15-year mandatory minimum sentence. The statute (and clause) at issue in both cases is 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii), which includes an offense that "is burglary, arson, or extortion, or otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another." (emphasis added).

In Begay, the Court found that in order to give effect to every word in the definition, the "otherwise clause" must be interpreted to include only offenses that "are roughly similar, in kind as well as in degree of risk posed, to the" listed offenses. The Court further stated:

The listed crimes all typically involve purposeful, "violent," and "aggressive" conduct.  And such crimes are "characteristic of the armed career criminal, the eponym of the statute."

DUI doesn’t fit this standard:

By way of contrast, statutes that forbid driving under the influence, such as the statute before us, typically do not insist on purposeful, violent, and aggressive conduct; rather, they are, or are most nearly comparable to, crimes that impose strict liability, criminalizing conduct in respect to which the offender need not have had any criminal intent at all.

Chambers now asks the Court whether a failure to report to prison that leads to a conviction for escape can be the basis for enhanced sentencing under the ACCA. SCOTUSblog notes the appeal in Chambers v. U.S. states the lower courts are split on whether a prior conviction for escape, when it’s based upon a failure to report for confinement, is a violent felony. “There is a 10-2 split of authority on whether all escapes should be treated as violent crimes for purposes of career offender status.”

The Court will hear Chambers v. U.S. in the next Term, starting Oct. 6.

The Fifth Circuit Blog has a post today titled, “Begin the Begay (-Based Arguments, That Is): SCOTUS Holds Felony DUI Not an ACCA "Violent Felony." Here’s the intro:

Today's Supreme Court news will likely be dominated by coverage of Baze v. Rees, the lethal-injection case, but today's decision in Begay will likely have a far bigger impact in terms of the number of cases affected.

At issue in Begay was whether felony DUI is a "violent felony" for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act's 15-year mandatory minimum sentence. More specifically, does felony DUI qualify under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii), which includes an offense that "is burglary, arson, or extortion, or otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another." (emphasis added).

The answer: No. The Court concluded that, in order to give effect to every word in the definition, the "otherwise clause" must be interpreted to include only offenses that "are roughly similar, in kind as well as in degree of risk posed, to the" listed offenses. And how do we know if that rough similarity exists?

The rest of the article is here.

Straight from SCOTUSblog:

Today’s opinion by Justice Breyer in Begay v. United States (06-11543) is now available here. Justice Scalia filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Souter and Thomas joined.

[In Begay,] the court found that drunk driving is not a “violent felony,” at least for purposes of an enhanced prison sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act. The ruling, written by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, came on a 6-3 vote in Begay v. U.S. (06-11543).

Today’s unanimous opinion by Justice Ginsburg in Burgess v. United States (06-11429) is now available here.

In a second decision on an enhanced sentencing law, the Court ruled that a drug crime that is punishable by more than one year in prison is a “felony drug offense” even if state law classifies it as a misdemeanor. The unanimous ruling came in the case of Burgess v. U.S. (06-11429).

Today’s opinion in Baze v. Rees (07-5439) is now available here. The Chief Justice announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion in which Justices Kennedy and Alito joined. Justice Alito also filed a concurring opinion. Justice Stevens and Breyer each filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Scalia and Thomas each filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which the other joined. Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Souter joined.

Baze is the superstar here, but I'm interested in the other two as well. I’ll need some time to review, but here's the SCOTUSblog recap (in its entirety) on Baze:

Lethal injection allowed

Click to read more ...