ILNews

Justices rule vehicular flight from police is 'violent' felony

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The nation’s highest court affirmed an Indianapolis federal judge’s ruling, finding that someone who flees from police in a vehicle is committing a “crime of violence” that justifies a longer sentence.

On June 9, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a decision in Sykes v. United States, No. 09-11311, ruling 6-3 that vehicular fleeing warrants an enhanced criminal sentence for habitual offenders pursuant to the federal Armed Career Criminal Act.

This ruling was one of the latest in a series in recent years that has addressed the scope of this federal act and focused on what is considered “violent.” Attorneys say the holding is likely going to impact several pending cases throughout the nation, including at the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Marcus Sykes pleaded guilty in 2008 to being a felon in possession of a firearm after he’d been arrested for brandishing a gun while attempting to rob two people sitting in a parked car outside an Indianapolis liquor store. Though Sykes didn’t follow through on his robbery attempt, police saw him toss the gun aside and arrested him. The probation office issued a pre-sentence report concluding that he was subject to a sentencing enhancement under the ACCA because of three previous violent felony convictions – two 1996 convictions for robbery and one in 2003 for resisting law enforcement in a vehicle, a Class D felony under state statute. Sykes objected to the sentence enhancement on grounds that his conviction for resisting law enforcement was not considered a violent felony under Indiana Code 35-44-3-3(b)(1)(A).

U.S. Judge Larry McKinney in the Southern District of Indiana rejected Sykes’ argument and applied the enhancement, resulting in a 188-month prison sentence. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.

Six of the nation’s top jurists agreed, finding the crime was violent. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority, which included Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, and Sonia Sotomayor. Justice Clarence Thomas concurred with the result in his own opinion, but Justices Antonin Scalia, Elena Kagan, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented.

In the 12-page majority opinion, the justices backed away from a test created in a 2008 case calling for judges to determine whether a crime is “purposeful, violent, and aggressive” when considering whether it is a violent felony eligible for the ACCA. Instead, the court looked at the particular facts of this case and statistical information about vehicular flight that were not included in the District or appellate records by the government.

“Congress chose to frame ACCA in general and qualitative, rather than encyclopedic terms,” Justice Kennedy wrote. “It could have defined violent felonies by compiling a list of specific covered offenses. Congress instead stated a normative principle. Although this approach may at times be more difficult for courts to implement, it is within congressional power to enact.”

But Justice Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion that criticizes the ruling as well as Congress for “shoddy draftsmanship” of the ACCA. He wrote that the majority’s holding “will sow further confusion” because it moves away from precedent on the “purposeful, violent, and aggressive” test and instead narrows the application to “strict liability, negligence, and recklessness crimes.”

“We face a Congress that puts forth an ever-increasing volume of laws in general, and of criminal laws in particular,” the dissent says. “It should be no surprise that as the volume increases, so do the number of imprecise laws. And no surprise that our indulgence of imprecisions that violate the Constitution encourages imprecisions that violate the Constitution. Fuzzy, leave-the-details-to-be-sorted-out-by-the-courts legislation is attractive to the Congressman who wants credit for addressing a national problem but does not have the time (or perhaps the votes) to grapple with the nitty-gritty. In the field of criminal law, at least, it is time to call a halt. I do not think it would be a radical step – indeed, I think it would be highly responsible – to limit ACCA to the named violent crimes. Congress can quickly add what it wishes. Because the majority prefers to let vagueness reign, I respectfully dissent.”

Justices Kagan and Ginsburg also joined in a separate dissent, saying that they would have deferred to what the Indiana Legislature intended when it distinguished between the various vehicular flight types outlined in sentencing statute.

Some attorneys predict this latest ruling will lead to more confusion for the practicing bar and the judges who must decide these issues.

Brian Paul with Ice Miller in Indianapolis expects he will lose one case already pending before the 7th Circuit, as it deals with the same issue and the appellate Circuit will likely be bound by what the SCOTUS has ruled.

“They’ll have to reject our argument and we’re going to lose at that level,” he said. “But what this means for the future is difficult to tell. This just doesn’t advance the ball in terms of analysis of the Armed Career Criminal Act. We’ll continue to get cases dealing with different crimes where the court must decide each one, and the problem is that each time it will have to be considered individually by the court rather than there being any guidance or standard.”•
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT