ILNews

SCOTUS takes case on whether vehicular flight from police is a 'violent felony'

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Fleeing in a vehicle from police is a crime, without a doubt. No one disputes that.

But whether that crime is considered a “violent” one worthy of an enhanced sentence under a long-standing federal career criminal statute is a legal nuance now an issue before the nation’s highest court, and Indiana is playing a key role.

The Supreme Court of the United States will address that question Jan. 12 when it hears arguments in a case out of Indiana, and the result is likely to impact a handful of other cases already pending in the state’s federal courts as well as reshape precedent on how these and other sentencing standards are viewed across the country.

“We have a piecemeal, Scrabble board of caselaw on this topic right now, and it’s a case-by-case, crime-by-crime analysis,” said Indianapolis attorney Brian Paul, who represents one defendant appealing on this issue at the 7th Circuit. “It’s up to each individual judge and, as an attorney, you don’t have any guidance on how this might be determined except that it might fall under some vague catch-all provision in this federal act about what a ‘crime of violence’ is.”

The cases that are unfolding on this issue center on one provision in the Armed Career Criminal Act, first enacted in 1984 but revised periodically through the years. The controversial part of the law is the meaning of “violent felony,” which has an element of the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force. Specifically, the act lists burglary, arson, extortion, or the use of explosives as applying, but it also includes anything that “otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.”

That definition has been causing concern for years, and in recent years the SCOTUS has taken up cases to address it as applied to drunk driving, attempted murder, and other specific crimes. But now it’s being tackled in connection with the use of a vehicle to flee from police.

As its new term began about two months ago, the SCOTUS on Sept. 28 granted certiorari in the case of Sykes v. United States, 09-11311, which comes from the Southern District of Indiana.

The defendant, 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. Sykes pleaded guilty and 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, which is 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).

At the District level, U.S. Judge Larry McKinney rejected Sykes’ argument and applied the enhancement, resulting in a 188-month prison sentence. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on the case in March and affirmed the trial judge’s enhancement decision, finding that it is considered a “violent felony” as the court had previously decided on other cases.

The appellate court applied its ruling in United States v. Spells, 537 F.3d 743, 753 (7th Cir.2008), finding that its precedent was “neither unworkable nor unsound” and grounds to reject Sykes’ push that the past holding should be set aside. Though Sykes acknowledged the 7th Circuit’s holding in Spells that vehicular fleeing from police counts as a violent felony under the ACCA’s residual clause, he contended that the appellate court should instead follow what the 11th Circuit has done in United States v. Harrison, 558 F.3d 1280, 1292 (11th Cir.2009). There, the court held that a nearly identical Florida statute that punishes “fleeing law enforcement” is not a violent felony under the ACCA.

With the Circuit split, and a history of accepting other cases focusing on the “catch all” provision in the ACCA, the SCOTUS agreed to hear the issue.

Indianapolis-based public defender Bill Marsh with the Indiana Federal Community Defenders represents Sykes and is making his debut appearance before the high court.

“We have several of these cases from Indiana and Wisconsin and other states that are in the pipeline, all with similar state statutes on fleeing that we’re talking about here,” Marsh said. “This means a lot to those who are being charged and convicted on these grounds, with the penalty having a maximum of 10 years normally but turning into a minimum of 15 years under this. This is an evolving area, but it’s narrow.”

It doesn’t make sense that a crime such as criminal recklessness, which sometimes is determined to be more serious than fleeing from police in a vehicle under state statute, has been determined to not be an ACCA predicate crime, March said. The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines also don’t consider this type of offense to be considered “violent” and subject to longer sentences, he said.

“We just need consistency,” Marsh said.

The U.S. Department of Justice and Solicitor General declined to comment on the Sykes case or the general issue prior to the arguments next month, instead referring to the merit briefs already submitted and whatever else may be on the record once the justices hear arguments.

But the impact of Sykes goes far beyond that particular case and will help determine the fate of other cases and the Hoosier attorneys representing those defendants.

Paul is an Ice Miller lawyer handling one of those cases pro bono before the 7th Circuit. That case is U.S. v. Jadrion Griffin, No. 10-2028, and stems from a ruling by U.S. Judge Richard Young in the Southern District of Indiana’s Evansville division. A federal grand jury indicted Griffin in 2009 for various drug and gun-related offenses dating back to February 2007, and part of his eventual 360-month sentence in April delved into a past conviction of fleeing from police by vehicle.

But now that the SCOTUS has agreed to hear the other Indiana case on this issue, Paul has asked the 7th Circuit to hold off on deciding the Griffin case until the high court issues a decision – likely by the end of June.

“It’s not totally shocking that the Supreme Court took Sykes, but it is somewhat because of how these cases continue going before the court,” he said, referencing the decisions from recent years on “violent crimes.”

In one case, Justice Antonin Scalia dissented and criticized that the court would likely have to decide this issue on each type of crime, rather than issuing some uniform guidance for judges and courts to follow. But what he finds even more troubling is that the government hasn’t produced specific studies or statistics about how vehicular fleeing from police might be considered “violent,” depending on speeds and demographics or other circumstances.

The Fair Sentencing Act is aimed at restoring fairness to federal sentences, and that same standard should apply here as it relates to crimes that under state law and even U.S. Sentencing Guidelines are not considered “similar” as far as “violence.” Judge Richard Posner has described this as “an embarrassment to the law,” Paul noted.

“I’m not a criminal lawyer and handle mostly civil cases, but I see how the confusion and lack of clarity here creates anxiety in the criminal justice community,” he said. “This comes down to accountability. Basically, it’s like prosecutors are saying, ‘trust me, this is a crime of violence because we say so’ and the judges are left to decide this by the seats of their pants, based on what they might consider is violent. We need to do better.”•
 

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