Applying
the categorical approach, the Court determined that Dahl’s Delaware convictions
were broader than the aggravated sexual abuse statutes embodied at 18 U.S.C. §
2241 in two ways, and therefore could not count as predicates for an enhanced
sentence under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.5. First, the sexual contact prohibited under
Delaware law encompassed touching genitalia and other specified areas through
clothing, whereas the federal statute requires penetration or skin-to-skin
contact between various body parts. Second, the Delaware third-degree unlawful
sexual contact statute prohibited consensual contact the defendant nonetheless knew
was “offensive to the victim,” whereas the federal aggravated sexual abuse
statute requires a nonconsensual act.
Case summaries of recently decided Third Circuit criminal law cases and other relevant updates provided by Federal Defenders and CJA Panel Attorneys.
Friday, September 02, 2016
Repeat and Dangerous Sex Offender Guideline / Categorical Approach
In
United States v. Dahl, No. 15-2271 (3d Cir., Aug. 17, 2016), the district court
committed plain error by failing to apply the categorical approach in
determining whether Dahl’s Delaware first- and third-degree unlawful sexual
contact convictions constitute federal sex offense convictions under the
federal repeat offender statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2426(b)(1)(B), and therefore
subjected him to an increased sentence under the career sexual offender
guideline embodied at U.S.S.G. § 4B1.5. Section 2426(b)(1)(B) refers to a
“conviction for an offense . . . consisting of conduct that would have been an
offense” under certain federal statutes, and § 4B1.5 refers to a “sex offense
conviction” as “any offense [under 18 U.S.C. § 2426(b)(1)(B)], if the offense
was perpetrated against a minor.” However, the Supreme Court’s decisions in Descamps,
Johnson, Mathis, and Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29
(2009) demonstrate that the factual inquiry triggered by the qualifying
language in the statute is limited to the facts relevant to the qualification
itself. Therefore, the district court could make a factual inquiry into whether
the victim of Dahl’s offenses were minors, but was required to apply the
categorical approach to the underlying elements of the predicate offenses.
Dahl was entitled to resentencing under plain
error review. The error was plain in light of recent Supreme Court precedents,
it affected Dahl’s substantial rights because it subjected him to a much harsher
guideline range, and the Court typically exercises its discretion to recognize
a misapplication of the Guidelines as affecting the fairness, integrity, or
public reputation of judicial proceedings.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The District Court's indication of the sentence it would impose before the defendant allocuted was not reversible plain error.
In United States v. Packer , 83 F.4th 193 (3d Cir. Sept. 26, 2023), https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/222554p.pdf , the ...
-
Greetings Blog readers, We are trying to determine how this Third Circuit blog can best suit your needs. If you have thoughts and suggesti...
-
February 23, 2023 Topics: Compassionate release February 24, 2023 Topics: Sex abuse of a ward, acquitted conduct https://www.ussc.gov/policy...
-
In United States v. Malik Nasir , Appeal No. 18-2888 , the Third Circuit finally resolved defendant Malik Nasir's appeal after review be...
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.