Criminal Law Library Blog

January 15, 2009

ABA: US Supreme Court Update. 2009-01-15.

Supreme Court Update: A Service from the ABA Criminal Justice Section www.abanet.org/crimjust

CHAMBERS V. UNITED SATES The Court ruled in Chambers v. United Sates (No. 06-11206) that a failure to report for prison does not count as a violent crime under a federal law intended to keep repeat criminals in prison longer.

A unanimous court on Tuesday threw out a mandatory 15-year prison term given to Deondery Chambers, who pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a gun. Chambers had three prior convictions, which prosecutors argued and lower courts agreed brought him under the federal Armed Career Criminal Act.

But one of Chambers’ convictions was for his “failure to report” for weekend jail stays. The government contended that not showing up for the weekend confinement was akin to an escape and should be treated as a violent crime.

Justice Stephen Breyer rejected that argument in his opinion for the court. Breyer said a report that examined failures to report to prison found no evidence that defendants were more likely to resist arrest and potentially injure law enforcement officers or others.

In a separate opinion, Justice Samuel Alito said the court is called on too often to interpret the career criminal law and suggested that Congress come up with a list of specific crimes that should trigger application of the law.

JIMINEZ V. QUARTERMAN In a second criminal case, the court unanimously ruled for a Texas prison inmate seeking federal review of his 43-year prison term. The court interpreted a dead line determining when a judgment is final for purposes of section 28 U.S.C. 2244 (d)(1)(A). The USSC held that a federal appeals court in New Orleans was wrong to find that Carlos Jiminez had missed a deadline for filing his paperwork in federal court. Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the opinion, holding that where a state court grants a criminal defendant the right to file an out-of-time direct appeal during state collateral review, but before the defendant has first sought federal habeas relief, his judgment is not “final” for purposes of section .2244 (d)(1)(A) until the conclusion of the out-of-time direct appeal, or the expiration of the time for seeking certiorari review of the appeal.

The Chambers v. U.S., 06-11206, and Jiminez v. Quarterman, 07-6984 cases are available at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08slipopinion.html.

——————————————————————————–
Continue reading

January 15, 2009

New York Appellate Criminal Cases Originating from the New York Supreme Court NY County – Lexis. January 12 ,15, 2009.

by David Badertscher

Update from the Lexis Alert Service,

January 12 ,15, 2009

1. People v. Kelley, 4996, 6077/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 49; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 67, January 8, 2009, Decided, January 8, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

January 14, 2009

New York: Jonathan Lippman Has Been Nominated by Governor David Paterson to Serve As the Chief Judge of the New York State Court of Appeals

by David Badertscher

Governor David Paterson has nominated Jonathan Lippman, currently presiding justice in the Appellate Division First Department of the State Supreme Court, to fill the chief judge’s post that was vacarted when Judith Kaye retired. See Press Release announcing the nomination.

January 14, 2009

Seeking Funding Ideas for Court*

by David Badertscher

QUESTION:

We as a court are in the process of looking under every rock for potential funding sources. To that end we are interested in getting ideas and tips about short- or long-term legislation and policies around the nation that have provided directed funding to court programs or projects. Specifically, temporary filing fee assessments, temporary fine enhancements, fees for ongoing technology improvements, etc… We intend to use these as ammunition for similar funding should that possibility exist or become necessary during our legislative process. The sky is the limit here and we are looking for ideas so any thought would be helpful.

RESPONSE

January 14, 2009

Proposed Democratic Senate Committee Assignments for 111th Congress

by David Badertscher

On December 22, 2008 we posted a list of House committee assignments preferred by many freshman in the 111th congress.

Although we have heard nothing more about House commitee assignments, we have heard from the Senate. Senate Majority Harry Reid has announced a partial list of the committee assignments he anticipates members of the Democratic Caucus will hold during the 111th Congress. As required by Senate rules, Senator Reid will meet with the Republican Leader to finalize the make-up of each Committee. For additional information including the anticipated committee assignment click on the link below
Partial List of Democratic Senate Committee Assignments Proposed for the 111th Congress

January 14, 2009

HeinOnline: New Content Added in 2008

by David Badertscher

Last year was a busy year for our HeinOnline team at William S. Hein & Co., Inc. If you missed anything, here is a quick recap of everything they accomplished in 2008…

——————————————————————————–

8 New Library Modules

January 9, 2009

Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich: Proposed Report of the Special Investigation Committee

by David Badertscher

See the Proposed Report of the Special Investigation Committee of the Illinois House of Representatives regarding the possible impeachment of Governor Rod R. Blagojevich.

January 9, 2009

Summary of Recent Decisions Regarding Investigatory Stops

by David Badertscher

From: Quinlan Law Enforcement eNews Alert, January 8, 2009.

Encounter between officer and defendant in parking lot of convenience store was consensual

“An encounter between a police officer and a defendant, as the defendant was walking to his car at a convenience store, in which the officer asked the defendant if he had anything was illegal, was consensual thus did not violate the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights. A police car had parked 12 feet behind the defendant’s car. The four officers on the scene were uniformed and the officer did not advise the defendant that he was free to leave. However, the encounter occurred in view of other patrons, and the officer did not touch the defendant until after he stated that he had a gun. Furthermore, only one of the officers approached the defendant, and the officer did not use an antagonistic tone.”