US v.
Valencia-Mendoza,
No. 17-30158 (1-10-19)(Graber w/McKeown & Christen).
In a 1326 sentencing case, the 9th considers what is a Guidelines “felony.” The Guidelines define a “felony” as an offense punishable by more than a year. However, the 9th finds its prior precedent to be overruled by the Supremes, and that a binding state range of less than a year, even if the maximum is more than a year, is not a felony. In this case, from Washington, the defendant had a prior with a theoretical maximum of five years. Yet, because Washington sets a binding sentencing range unless specific additional findings are made, the top of Washington’s range was 6 months. This was the actual maximum the defendant could have and did received. The 9th found that Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 560 US 563 (2010) and Moncrieffe v. Holder, 569 US 184 (2013) overruled the 9th’s past precedent and that the offense was not “punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.”
Defendant-Appellant Lashay Marie Lopez was convicted
In a 1326 sentencing case, the 9th considers what is a Guidelines “felony.” The Guidelines define a “felony” as an offense punishable by more than a year. However, the 9th finds its prior precedent to be overruled by the Supremes, and that a binding state range of less than a year, even if the maximum is more than a year, is not a felony. In this case, from Washington, the defendant had a prior with a theoretical maximum of five years. Yet, because Washington sets a binding sentencing range unless specific additional findings are made, the top of Washington’s range was 6 months. This was the actual maximum the defendant could have and did received. The 9th found that Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 560 US 563 (2010) and Moncrieffe v. Holder, 569 US 184 (2013) overruled the 9th’s past precedent and that the offense was not “punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.”
Editorial
note: This case supports those States that have bridge or open ended sentences,
arguably like Arizona’s “open 6.”
Congrats
to Miles Pope of Fed Defenders of Eastern Washington & Idaho -- a
significant victory with repercussions.
The
decision is here:
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2019/01/10/17-30158.pdf
2. US v. Lopez, No. 16-10261 (1-10-19)(Bybee w/Friedman; dissent by
Rawlinson). This is an Arizona case (and win). The 9th writes:
Defendant-Appellant Lashay Marie Lopez was convicted
on three federal
charges stemming from her purchase of a
firearm through
the use of false identification (ID). Because
Lopez admitted to
the offense conduct, the only issue before
the jury was the
affirmative defense of duress. Lopez claims
that she purchased
a handgun for Hector Karaca using her
identical twin
sister’s ID in violation of her probation and
federal law
because Karaca threatened to harm Lopez and her
family if she
failed to acquire a gun for him.
In support of her
duress defense, Lopez asked the district
court to allow her
to introduce expert testimony on Battered
Woman Syndrome
(BWS) and the effects of past abuse.
Lopez, who had
been physically and sexually abused by her
stepfather,
contended that this evidence would “help provide
context” to the
jury regarding her fear of Karaca and why she
did not seek help
from the police. Lopez similarly asserted
that the expert’s
description of the “characteristics of [a]
domestic violence
victim” would help explain her
“counterintuitive”
behavior regarding Karaca. The court,
however, excluded
this evidence in a series of oral rulings,
concluding that
BWS evidence is incompatible with the
duress defense’s
use of an objective reasonable-person
standard.
We join the weight
of authority in holding that such
expert testimony
may be used by a defendant to support her
duress defense and
rehabilitate her credibility. We therefore
find that the
district court committed legal error in precluding
Lopez’s expert
witness from testifying and conclude that this
decision was
prejudicial to her defense. Accordingly, we
vacate her
conviction and remand this case to the district
court for a new
trial.
Dissenting, Rawlinson argues that the
district court did not abuse its discretion in precluding the evidence.
The evidence is usually raised in self-defense, not duress.
Congrats to Mike Burke of Az FPD (Phoenix).
The decision is here:
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2019/01/10/16-10261.pdf
1 Comments:
ASS..WR.WB.SAYA PAK RESKY TKI BRUNAY DARUSALAM INGIN BERTERIMA KASIH BANYAK KEPADA EYANG WORO MANGGOLO,YANG SUDAH MEMBANTU ORANG TUA SAYA KARNA SELAMA INI ORANG TUA SAYA SEDANG TERLILIT HUTANG YANG BANYAK,BERKAT BANTUAN EYANG SEKARAN ORANG TUA SAYA SUDAH BISA MELUNASI SEMUA HUTAN2NYA,DAN SAWAH YANG DULUNYA SEMPAT DI GADAIKAN SEKARAN ALHAMDULILLAH SUDAH BISA DI TEBUS KEMBALI,ITU SEMUA ATAS BANTUAN EYANG WORO MANGGOLO MEMBERIKAN ANGKA RITUALNYA KEPADA KAMI DAN TIDAK DI SANGKA SANGKA TERNYATA BERHASIL,BAGI ANDA YANG INGIN DIBANTU SAMA SEPERTI KAMI SILAHKAN HUBUNGI NO HP EYANG WORO MANGGOLO (0823-9177-2208) JANGAN ANDA RAGU ANGKA RITUAL EYANG WORO MANGGOLO SELALU TEPAT DAN TERBUKTI INI BUKAN REKAYASA SAYA SUDAH MEMBUKTIKAN NYA TERIMAH KASIH
NO HP EYANG WORO MANGGOLO (0823-9177-2208)
BUTUH ANGKA GHOIB HASIL RTUAL EYANG WORO MANGGOLO
DIJAMIN TIDAK MENGECEWAKAN ANDA APAPUN ANDA MINTA INSYA ALLAH PASTI DIKABULKAN BERGAUNLAH SECEPATNYA BERSAMA KAMI JANGAN SAMPAI ANDA MENYESAL
angka;GHOIB: singapura
angka;GHOIB: hongkong
angka;GHOIB; malaysia
angka;GHOIB; toto magnum
angka”GHOIB; laos…
angka”GHOIB; macau
angka”GHOIB; sidney
angka”GHOIB: vietnam
angka”GHOIB: korea
angka”GHOIB: brunei
angka”GHOIB: china
angka”GHOIB: thailand
Post a Comment
<< Home