Supreme Court finds portion of Armed Career Criminal Act unconstitutionally vague.
In recent years, California has made important strides towards improving the fairness of criminal penalties with sentencing reform measures such as Prop 47 as well as revisions to the Three Strikes Law. However, as one recent Supreme Court case shows, there are still some unfair sentencing provisions on the books on a federal level.
Understanding the Armed Career Criminal Act
The Armed Career Criminal Act was passed in 1984 with the intent of cracking down on certain violent crimes by putting repeat offenders who used firearms in the commission of a new crime away for longer periods of time. It is similar to California’s Three Strikes Law in that it provides a harsher penalty upon conviction following a certain number of qualifying prior offenses.
Under the act, individuals may qualify for a sentence of 15 years to life in prison if they commit a crime involving firearm after having already been convicted of three or more “violent” felonies or “serious” drug crimes. The law mentions several specific “violent” felonies by name but also contains a general provision allowing any “conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another” to be considered “violent.”
Constitutionality of Armed Career Criminal Act Called into Question
The Supreme Court recently heard a challenge on a sentence imposed by the Armed Career Criminal Act in the case of Samuel Johnson, a white supremacist and felon who pled guilty to possession of a firearm in 2012.
Because Johnson already had three prior “violent” felonies on his record, he received a 15-year sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act.
However, his attorneys appealed on the grounds that his third felony conviction, which was for possession of an illegal firearm, was not actually “violent” and therefore should not be considered a qualifying conviction. They argued that simply possessing an illegal firearm—in this case a short-barreled shotgun—was not an inherently violent act. It seems clear that this argument is valid by the dictionary and by common sense.
In their deliberations, the Supreme Court Justices were forced to explore the larger issue of whether the “violent” felony provision in the Armed Career Criminal Act is so vague as to be unconstitutional. Ultimately the court decided that it is. The amorphous definition of a “violent” felony has troubled the lower courts for years, making it difficult for defense lawyers to give reliable advice to their clients about proposed plea deals. Now, the Supreme Court hopes to put an end to this by sending Congress back to the drawing board for a clearer definition.
