Your client has a prior conviction for felony escape. In reality, he just walked away from work release, or didn't go back to the half-way house. But he is still tagged with an escape conviction.
Later on, that conviction can trigger (with two other qualifying convictions) a 15 year-mandatory minimum for possession of a weapon, or otherwise increase penalties, such as under the career offender provision. The reason: that escape is classified as a 'violent felony,' even when there was absolutely no violence associated with the stroll away from community confinement. That has been the law in the Tenth Circuit, see US v. Gosling, 39 F3d 1140 (10th Cir 1994)(escape conviction is a crime of violence in context of career offender guideline, because "every escape scenario is a powder keg") and US v. Moudy, 132 F3d 618 (10th Cir 1998)( the “reasons ... for holding escape to be a crime of violence apply to all escapes, whether or not violence was actually involved”).
Last April, though, the United States Supreme Court granted cert on this question:
Whether a defendant’s failure to report for confinement “involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another” such that a conviction for escape based on that failure to report is a “violent felony” within the meaning of the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e).
Preserve this issue if you have a case now in which the prior escape conviction is used as a predicate for enhanced penalties. Remember, the 10th Circuit applies the same 'violent felony' definition for ACCA and career offender, see US v. Shipp, and it is more likely to arise in a career offender context, as only two such priors are necessary.
Chambers is scheduled for argument November 10th.
Link to Chambers Scotuswiki here.
Read more!
0 comments:
Post a Comment