Today the Supreme Court issued State v. Doe holding that under I.C. 20-507 juvenile court jurisdiction terminates no later than the juvenile's 21st birthday. In this case, Doe was on probation for a battery committed while he was a juvenile. A month before his 21st birthday, he admitted a PV to his probation officer. Nine days later, the state filed a petition. However, the admit/deny hearing was not held until 16 days after Doe's birthday. The Supreme Court determined that by virtue of I.C. 20-507 the juvenile court jurisdiction ended on Doe's 21st birthday and the petition must be dismissed even though that means that Doe's PV will go unpunished.
I guess we can anticipate that the state will soon be lobbying for an amendment to I.C. 20-507 to avoid this sort of outcome in the future.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Two New Criminal Law Opinions from SCOTUS
The U.S. Supreme Court issued five opinions today. Two have to do the with 42 USC 1983 (Pearson v. Callahan, 07-751, a qualified immunity case, and Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee, et al., 07-1125, holding that Title IX is not the exclusive method for seeking a remedy is a sex discrimination case). There was also a case involving whether a public sector union may include in non-members' agency fees costs for litigation outside the bargaining unit. (It can, if certain conditions are present.) Locke v. Karass (07-610).
We split the card in the two criminal cases, with one per curium win and the other a 6-3 loss.
First, the good news. In Spears v. United States (08-5721), a sentencing guidelines case, the Court granted review and reversed the opinion of the Circuit Court under Kimbrough v. U.S., 552 U.S. ___(2008). The Court clarifies that "district courts are entitled to reject and vary categorically from the crack cocaine Guidelines based upon a policy disagreement with those Guidelines." (Emphasis mine.) http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-5721.pdf
In Waddington v. Sarausad (07-772), a habeas case, the rulings of both the district court and the circuit court granting habeas relief were reversed. The Court held that the Washington Court's ruling that a jury instruction was not ambiguous and correctly stated the law was not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. Therefore, habeas relief was not available. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-772.pdf
Justice Souter shows how the jury instruction was ambiguous, how the prosecutor used it to argue in closing an erroneous theory of accomplice liability and how even the Washington appellate courts were in conflict about the meaning of the instruction. All, alas, in dissent.
We split the card in the two criminal cases, with one per curium win and the other a 6-3 loss.
First, the good news. In Spears v. United States (08-5721), a sentencing guidelines case, the Court granted review and reversed the opinion of the Circuit Court under Kimbrough v. U.S., 552 U.S. ___(2008). The Court clarifies that "district courts are entitled to reject and vary categorically from the crack cocaine Guidelines based upon a policy disagreement with those Guidelines." (Emphasis mine.) http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-5721.pdf
In Waddington v. Sarausad (07-772), a habeas case, the rulings of both the district court and the circuit court granting habeas relief were reversed. The Court held that the Washington Court's ruling that a jury instruction was not ambiguous and correctly stated the law was not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. Therefore, habeas relief was not available. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-772.pdf
Justice Souter shows how the jury instruction was ambiguous, how the prosecutor used it to argue in closing an erroneous theory of accomplice liability and how even the Washington appellate courts were in conflict about the meaning of the instruction. All, alas, in dissent.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
The Ball Really is in Our Court
Your faithful blogger has been informed that the Idaho Association of Prosecuting Attorneys is not interested in co-sponsoring a bill to amend Idaho's "expungement" statutes. So, if we want it done, we'll have to do it ourselves.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
SCOTUS Today: Two Defense Losses
After two defense wins yesterday, we get two losses this morning.
In Oregon v. Ice, the Court held 5-4 that it does not violate the Sixth Amendment for a judge to impose consecutive sentences based on facts that were not found by the jury. (Under Oregon law sentences are to be served concurrently unless there is a finding that the offenses did not arise out of the same course of conduct and resulted in separate harms.) Justice Ginsburg states for the majority that Apprendi v. New Jersey and its progeny is limited to sentencing for single crimes. Justice Scalia, who has turned out to be the strongest champion of the proposition that jury must find all facts (other than a prior conviction) which increase a sentence, dissented.
In Herring v. United States, another 5-4 decision, the Court held that the exclusionary rule does not apply when police obtain evidence while relying on erroneous information supplied by another police officer. Here, the defendant was arrested on a report of a warrant which had, in fact, been recalled months earlier. Naturally, the police found guns and drugs during the search incident to arrest. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion. Justices Ginsburg and Breyer wrote dissenting opinions.
Herring should be of no consequence in state court practice as Idaho, thankfully, does not have a good-faith exception to its state constitutional exclusionary rule. State v. Guzman.
In Oregon v. Ice, the Court held 5-4 that it does not violate the Sixth Amendment for a judge to impose consecutive sentences based on facts that were not found by the jury. (Under Oregon law sentences are to be served concurrently unless there is a finding that the offenses did not arise out of the same course of conduct and resulted in separate harms.) Justice Ginsburg states for the majority that Apprendi v. New Jersey and its progeny is limited to sentencing for single crimes. Justice Scalia, who has turned out to be the strongest champion of the proposition that jury must find all facts (other than a prior conviction) which increase a sentence, dissented.
In Herring v. United States, another 5-4 decision, the Court held that the exclusionary rule does not apply when police obtain evidence while relying on erroneous information supplied by another police officer. Here, the defendant was arrested on a report of a warrant which had, in fact, been recalled months earlier. Naturally, the police found guns and drugs during the search incident to arrest. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion. Justices Ginsburg and Breyer wrote dissenting opinions.
Herring should be of no consequence in state court practice as Idaho, thankfully, does not have a good-faith exception to its state constitutional exclusionary rule. State v. Guzman.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Two U.S. Supreme Court Opinions Issued Today
The U.S. Supreme Court issued two new opinions this morning. Both cases overturn lower court opinions favorable to the prosecution.
In Jimenez v. Quarterman, a federal habeas case, the Court held that the habeas statute of limitations does not start to run on a reinstated state court appeal until after the appeal is concluded. This would apply in cases where the state court grants the defendant the right to file an out of time appeal. So, for example, if trial counsel fails to file a Notice of Appeal and the defendant files a post-conviction petition which gets the appeal reinstated, the federal one- year limitations period does not begin to run until the reinstated appeal is over. (Thomas, J., writing for the Court, reverses the decision of the Federal District Court of the Northern District of Texas. There is no Fifth Circuit opinion because that Court wouldn't even grant a certificate of appealability!)
The Court held in Chambers v. United States, that a violation of Illinois' failure to report to penal confinement statute is not a "violent felony" for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act, which requires a 15-year mandatory minimum sentence on a felon in possession of a firearm if there is a prior conviction for a violent felony. The failure to report for jail, unlike escaping from jail, does not involve conduct which presents a serious risk of physical injury to another. (Breyer, J., writing for the Court, reversing the Seventh Circuit.)
In Jimenez v. Quarterman, a federal habeas case, the Court held that the habeas statute of limitations does not start to run on a reinstated state court appeal until after the appeal is concluded. This would apply in cases where the state court grants the defendant the right to file an out of time appeal. So, for example, if trial counsel fails to file a Notice of Appeal and the defendant files a post-conviction petition which gets the appeal reinstated, the federal one- year limitations period does not begin to run until the reinstated appeal is over. (Thomas, J., writing for the Court, reverses the decision of the Federal District Court of the Northern District of Texas. There is no Fifth Circuit opinion because that Court wouldn't even grant a certificate of appealability!)
The Court held in Chambers v. United States, that a violation of Illinois' failure to report to penal confinement statute is not a "violent felony" for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act, which requires a 15-year mandatory minimum sentence on a felon in possession of a firearm if there is a prior conviction for a violent felony. The failure to report for jail, unlike escaping from jail, does not involve conduct which presents a serious risk of physical injury to another. (Breyer, J., writing for the Court, reversing the Seventh Circuit.)
Monday, January 12, 2009
Expungment: The Ball Is In Our Court
For some time now I have been urging Idaho criminal defense lawyers to team up with prosecutors to sponsor model expungment legislation. My premise has been that expungment law in Idaho is a mess and the only solution is legislative intervention. Impossible, you say? That liberal blue state of Utah has come up with a comprehensive scheme: http://www.utcourts.gov/howto/expunge/. (Child molesters never are eligible for expungment). You can get on the Utah State Court website and with a few clicks get the following questions answered:
- Who Can Get Their Adult Record Expunged?
- Who Can Get a Juvenile Record Expungement?
- When is Expungment Allowed?
- How Much Does an Expungment Cost?
- Will my Offenses Remain on My Driving Record?
- Is There a Time Requirement for Dismissal?
- What Must I Bring When I Apply for an Expungment?
- Where Will My Petition be Filed?
- What if I Fail to Appear at the Hearing on my Petition?
- If I Complete my Petition at Home, what are the Requirements?
- What If My Motion of Expungment is Granted?
We can continue to flail with inconsistent expungment triage or work towards a real solution – like Utah’s.
Legislative Session Begins
- The Legislature convenes today. SCOIDBlog will be following legislation of interest to criminal defense lawyers.
- Chief Justice Eismann will not be giving the traditional State of the Judiciary address today due to his illness. The Chief Justice is being treated for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. According to the AP, court officials say he is taking treatment well and his prognosis is good for a full recovery.
- It is sad to note that the Chief Justice and our own Tom McCabe, both Vietnam vets, have been diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The VA, after years of denial, now acknowledges the disease as part of a broader Agent Orange syndrome. (Probably not what they had in mind when they volunteered to serve.) Tom is out of treatment and is back to his old loquacious self.
- No new opinions today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
