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.”•


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I commend Joe for standing up to this tyrant attorney! You ask why? Well I’m one of David Steele victims. I was in desperate need of legal help to protect my child, David saw an opportunity, and he demanded I pay him $3000. Cash. As I received motions and orders from court he did nothing! After weeks of emails asking him to address the legal issues, he responded by saying he was “on vacation “and I should be so lucky to have “my attorney” reply. Finally after lie on top of lie I asked for a full refund, which he refused. He then sent me “bills” for things he never did, such as, his appearance in the case and later claimed he withdrew. He never filed one document / motion for my case! When I finally demanded he refund my money he then turn to threats which scared my family for our lives. It seem unreal we couldn’t believe this guy. I am now over $100,000 in debt digging out of the legal mess he caused my family. Later I was finally able to hire another law office. I met Joe and we worked diligently on my case. I soon learn Joe had a passion for helping people. As anyone who has been through a legal battle it is exhausting. Joe was always more than happy to help or address an issue. Joe was knowledgeable about all my concerns at the same time he was able to reduce the stress and anxieties of my case. He would stay late and come in early, he always went the extra mile to help in any way he could. I can only imagine what Joe and his family has been through, my prayers go out to him and all the victims.

  2. Steele did more than what is listed too. He purposely sought out to ruin me, calling potential employers and then lied about me alleging all kinds of things including kidnapping. None of his allegations were true. If you are in need of an ethical and very knowledgeable family law paralegal, perhaps someone could post their contact information. Ethics cannot be purchased, either your paralegal has them or they do not.

  3. This is ridiculous. Most JDs not practicing law don't know squat to justify calling themselves a lawyer. Maybe they should try visiting the inside of a courtroom before they go around calling themselves lawyers. This kind of promotional BS just increases the volume of people with JDs that are underqualified thereby dragging all the rest of us down likewise.

  4. I think it is safe to say that those Hoosier's with the most confidence in the Indiana judicial system are those Hoosier's who have never had the displeasure of dealing with the Hoosier court system.

  5. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise