SAFE HAVEN - THEFT OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTY - DIVISIBLE STATUTE
The federal offence of theft of government property, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 641, is defined as follows:
CRIMES OF MORAL TURPITUDE - PETTY THEFT - CALIFORNIA - NO INTENT TO PERMANENTLY DEPRIVE -- SAFE HAVENS
Theft under California Penal Code 484 does not require in every case the intent to carry away or to deprive the owner of the property permanently. It therefore is not categorically a CMT. While CALJIC 14.02 states that theft by larceny under Penal Code 487 is committed by "every person who steals, takes, carries" . . .
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE - INTENT REQUIREMENT - RECKLESS BUT UNINTENTIONAL MENS REA INSUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTE CRIME OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
Fernandez-Ruiz v. Gonzales, ___ F.3d ___ (9th Cir. Oct. 26, 2006) (Arizona conviction of domestic violence assault, in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stats. 13-1203(A)(1) ["[i]ntentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causing any physical injury to another"], did not constitute a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. 16(a), and is therefore not a domestic violence conviction, within the meaning of INA 237(a)(2)(E)(i), 8 U.S.C.
AGGRAVATED FELONY - CRIME OF VIOLENCE - ASSAULT
Fernandez-Ruiz v. Gonzales, ___ F.3d ___ (9th Cir. Oct. 26, 2006) (Arizona conviction of domestic violence assault, in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stats. 13-1203(A)(1) ["[i]ntentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causing any physical injury to another"], did not constitute a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. 16(a), and is therefore not a domestic violence conviction, within the meaning of INA 237(a)(2)(E)(i), 8 U.S.C.
POST-CONVICTION RELIEF - STATE ADVISAL STATUTE - MASSACHUSETTS
Commonwealth v. Rzepphiewski, 431 Mass. 48, 725 N.E.2d 210 (Mass. 2000) (reconstructed record, based on affidavit of judge plus court docket, is sufficient to constitute a record of the giving of the statutory advisal concerning potential immigration consequences required by Mass. Gen. Laws, ch. 278, 29D (2004), in response to defendant's motion to vacate where official records have been destroyed in regular course of business); see Commonwealth v. Ciampa, 51 Mass. App. Ct. 459, 747 N.E.2d 185, 187 (Mass. App.
POST-CONVICTION RELIEF - STATE ADVISAL STATUTE - DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Slytman v. United States, 804 A.2d 1113 (D.C. 2002) (substantial compliance with state advisal statute sufficed to give defendant sufficient notice of potential immigration consequences of plea).
POST CON RELIEF - STATE ADVISAL STATUTE - DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Valdez v. United States, 906 A.2d 284, 2006 D.C.App. LEXIS 498 (D.C. Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2006) (reconstructed record, based on affidavit of judge or other percipient witness, may be sufficient to constitute a record of the giving of the statutory advisal concerning potential immigration consequences required by D.C. Code 16-713 (2001) in response to defendant's motion to vacate where official records have been destroyed in regular course of business).
RECORD OF CONVICTION - NATURE OF OFFENSE - SENTENCING CANNOT DETERMINE NATURE OF OFFENSE
Sentencing is a post-guilt-or-innocence procedure, and particularly where a guilty plea is involved, cannot be used to determine the nature of the offense of which the person was convicted. See Larin-Ulloa v. Gonzales, 462 F.3d 456 (5th Cir. 2006). See also Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).
Thanks to Lisa Brodyaga.
ADMISSION - INCRIMINATING STATEMENT MADE DURING PLEA BARGAINING IS INADMISSIBLE IN ANY ACTION
People v. Brock (2006) ___ Cal.App.4th ___ (Second Dist., Aug. 3, 2006) (statement made by defendant during plea negotiations should not have been admitted at trial as confession, since a criminal defendant's offer to plead guilty "is inadmissible in any action or in any proceeding of any nature . . . . " (Evid. Code, 1153.) "The purpose of the statute is to promote the public interest by encouraging the parties to settle a criminal case without the necessity of a trial." (People v.
JUDICIAL REVIEW - PETITION FOR REVIEW - REVIEW OF DISCRETIONARY DECISION ALLOWED WHERE BIA'S DECISION WOULD PREVENT NONCITIZEN FROM PURSUING STATUTORY RIGHTS WITHOUT STATED REASONS CONSISTENT WITH IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT
Ahmed v. Gonzales, 465 F.3d 806 (7th Cir. Oct. 16, 2006) (IJ's decision that did not address a family-based visa petition that had been filed in petitioner's case, and that petitioner alleged grandfathered him under INA 245(i); where the court has jurisdiction to review a discretionary decision that would, without stated reasons consistent with the statute, operate to prevent a noncitizen from pursuing statutory rights).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/7th/053965p.pdf
