Jump to content

Armed Career Criminal Act: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Reverted edits by 173.73.108.194 (talk): original research (HG) (3.4.10)
No edit summary
Line 11: Line 11:
The definition of "violent felony" in ACCA<ref>18 U.S.C. 924(e)(2)(B)</ref> has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in ''[[Begay v. United States]]'' and ''[[Chambers v. United States]]'', which determined that neither drunk driving nor failure to report for incarceration were considered violent felonies, respectively.<ref>[https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/6-11206.ZO.html Chambers at LII]</ref> The Supreme Court ruled in ''[[Stokeling v. United States]]'' (Docket 17-5554) in January 2019 that criminal acts like pick pocketing and purse snatching should only be considered violent felonies if the perpetrator employed more force than is necessary to remove the property from that person. The Government further stated that, “slight offensive touching” would not satisfy the Florida robbery statute. Therefore, not all incidents of pick pocketing or snatching are automatically considered robbery offenses under the Florida statute which includes provisions for lesser theft crimes. <ref>{{Cite web | url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/17-5554 |title = Stokeling v. United States}}</ref>
The definition of "violent felony" in ACCA<ref>18 U.S.C. 924(e)(2)(B)</ref> has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in ''[[Begay v. United States]]'' and ''[[Chambers v. United States]]'', which determined that neither drunk driving nor failure to report for incarceration were considered violent felonies, respectively.<ref>[https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/6-11206.ZO.html Chambers at LII]</ref> The Supreme Court ruled in ''[[Stokeling v. United States]]'' (Docket 17-5554) in January 2019 that criminal acts like pick pocketing and purse snatching should only be considered violent felonies if the perpetrator employed more force than is necessary to remove the property from that person. The Government further stated that, “slight offensive touching” would not satisfy the Florida robbery statute. Therefore, not all incidents of pick pocketing or snatching are automatically considered robbery offenses under the Florida statute which includes provisions for lesser theft crimes. <ref>{{Cite web | url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/17-5554 |title = Stokeling v. United States}}</ref>


The definition of a "serious" drug crime<ref>924(e)(2)(A)</ref> was considered and further defined by the Supreme Court in ''[[United States v. Rodriquez]]''. In ''[[Taylor v. United States (1990)|Taylor v. United States]]'', the Court was called upon to determine the meaning of the word "burglary" in ACCA and, specifically, whether a conviction in Missouri for second-degree burglary was, in fact, a predicate conviction. The court concluded that an offense constitutes "burglary" under 924(e) if, regardless of its exact definition or label, it has the basic elements of burglary.
The definition of a "serious" drug crime<ref>924(e)(2)(A)</ref> was considered and further defined by the Supreme Court in ''[[United States v. Rodriquez]]''. In ''[[Taylor v. United States (1990)|Taylor v. United States]]'', the Court was called upon to determine the meaning of the word "burglary" in ACCA and, specifically, whether a conviction in Missouri for second-degree burglary was, in fact, a predicate conviction. The court concluded that an offense constitutes "burglary" under 924(e) if, regardless of its exact definition or label, it has the basic elements of burglary.<ref>{{cite web| url=https://www.drugcrime-law.co.il/%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%9A-%D7%93%D7%99%D7%9F-%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%A1%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%9D/ |title= עורך דין עבירות סמים }} Saturday, 5 June 2021 </ref>


On June 26, 2015, the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] ruled in ''[[Johnson v. United States (2015)|Johnson v. United States]]'' that part of the ACCA is unconstitutional.<ref>[https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-7120_p86b.pdf]</ref> The Court struck down a "catchall phrase" (also known as a residual clause) in the ACCA that was described as "vague" in outlining acts that could result in a harsher sentence.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/26/supreme-court-strikes-down-vague-part-career-criminal-law/</ref> "Under the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984, a defendant convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm faces more severe punishment if he has three or more previous convictions for a 'violent felony,' a term defined to include any felony that 'involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.' 18 U. S. C. §924(e)(2)(B). We must decide whether this part of the definition of a violent felony survives the Constitution’s prohibition of vague criminal laws...We hold that imposing an increased sentence under the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act violates the Constitution’s guarantee of due process. Our contrary holdings in James and Sykes are overruled. Today’s decision does not call into question application of the Act to the four enumerated offenses, or the remainder of the Act’s definition of a violent felony."<ref>[https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-7120_p86b.pdf]</ref>
On June 26, 2015, the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] ruled in ''[[Johnson v. United States (2015)|Johnson v. United States]]'' that part of the ACCA is unconstitutional.<ref>[https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-7120_p86b.pdf]</ref> The Court struck down a "catchall phrase" (also known as a residual clause) in the ACCA that was described as "vague" in outlining acts that could result in a harsher sentence.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/26/supreme-court-strikes-down-vague-part-career-criminal-law/</ref> "Under the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984, a defendant convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm faces more severe punishment if he has three or more previous convictions for a 'violent felony,' a term defined to include any felony that 'involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.' 18 U. S. C. §924(e)(2)(B). We must decide whether this part of the definition of a violent felony survives the Constitution’s prohibition of vague criminal laws...We hold that imposing an increased sentence under the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act violates the Constitution’s guarantee of due process. Our contrary holdings in James and Sykes are overruled. Today’s decision does not call into question application of the Act to the four enumerated offenses, or the remainder of the Act’s definition of a violent felony."<ref>[https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-7120_p86b.pdf]</ref>

Revision as of 09:07, 5 June 2021

The Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984 (ACCA)[1] is a United States federal law that provides sentence enhancements for felons who commit crimes with firearms if they are convicted of certain crimes three or more times.

If a felon has three or more prior convictions for offenses that are "violent felony" offenses or "serious drug offenses,"[2] the Act provides a minimum sentence of fifteen years imprisonment, instead of the ten-year maximum prescribed under the Gun Control Act. The Act provides for an implied maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

History of ACCA

The ACCA has been through numerous revisions in Congress and has evolved considerably since its passage in 1984.[3]

The ACCA was originally included with the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 sponsored by the Reagan Administration[4] and enhanced the penalties for possession of firearms under the Gun Control Act for felons who had been convicted three times of robbery or burglary.[5]

Cases involving the ACCA

The definition of "violent felony" in ACCA[6] has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in Begay v. United States and Chambers v. United States, which determined that neither drunk driving nor failure to report for incarceration were considered violent felonies, respectively.[7] The Supreme Court ruled in Stokeling v. United States (Docket 17-5554) in January 2019 that criminal acts like pick pocketing and purse snatching should only be considered violent felonies if the perpetrator employed more force than is necessary to remove the property from that person. The Government further stated that, “slight offensive touching” would not satisfy the Florida robbery statute. Therefore, not all incidents of pick pocketing or snatching are automatically considered robbery offenses under the Florida statute which includes provisions for lesser theft crimes. [8]

The definition of a "serious" drug crime[9] was considered and further defined by the Supreme Court in United States v. Rodriquez. In Taylor v. United States, the Court was called upon to determine the meaning of the word "burglary" in ACCA and, specifically, whether a conviction in Missouri for second-degree burglary was, in fact, a predicate conviction. The court concluded that an offense constitutes "burglary" under 924(e) if, regardless of its exact definition or label, it has the basic elements of burglary.[10]

On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Johnson v. United States that part of the ACCA is unconstitutional.[11] The Court struck down a "catchall phrase" (also known as a residual clause) in the ACCA that was described as "vague" in outlining acts that could result in a harsher sentence.[12] "Under the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984, a defendant convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm faces more severe punishment if he has three or more previous convictions for a 'violent felony,' a term defined to include any felony that 'involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.' 18 U. S. C. §924(e)(2)(B). We must decide whether this part of the definition of a violent felony survives the Constitution’s prohibition of vague criminal laws...We hold that imposing an increased sentence under the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act violates the Constitution’s guarantee of due process. Our contrary holdings in James and Sykes are overruled. Today’s decision does not call into question application of the Act to the four enumerated offenses, or the remainder of the Act’s definition of a violent felony."[13]

Footnotes

  1. ^ 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)
  2. ^ The prior convictions are referred to as "predicate" convictions: the government must prove the existence of three prior convictions as a "predicate" for the imposition of the sentence enhancement.
  3. ^ For an analysis of the ACCA's legislative history and proposals for amending the ACCA, consult this 2009 article from the Harvard Journal on Legislation: The Armed Career Criminal Act and the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines: Moving Toward Consistency, 46 Harv. J. on Legis. 537 (2009) Archived 2014-05-14 at the Wayback Machine
  4. ^ When H.R. 6248 was passed by Congress and presented to Reagan for signature, he vetoed the bill on the ground that identical provisions had been enacted a week earlier as part of P.L. 98-473. Reagan Veto Memorandum.
  5. ^ The original ACCA was codified at 18 U.S.C. 1202(a).
  6. ^ 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(2)(B)
  7. ^ Chambers at LII
  8. ^ "Stokeling v. United States".
  9. ^ 924(e)(2)(A)
  10. ^ "עורך דין עבירות סמים". Saturday, 5 June 2021
  11. ^ [1]
  12. ^ http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/26/supreme-court-strikes-down-vague-part-career-criminal-law/
  13. ^ [2]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armed_Career_Criminal_Act&oldid=1026972097"