crimmigration.com

The intersection of criminal law and immigration law

  • Home
  • About César
  • Articles
  • Books
  • Book Tour
  • Talks & Media

5th Cir.: South Carolina assault & battery of a high and aggravated nature is Crime of Violence

The Fifth Circuit released this week a case holding that a South Carolina state conviction for Assault and Batter of a High and Aggravated Nature (ABHAN), a state common law offense, is a crime of violence for purposes of sentencing enhancement. United States v. Guerrero-Robledo, No. 07-41151 (5th Cir. April 20, 2009). Though the court did not need to reach this issue to decide the case, it did so solely for the purpose of clarifying its treatment of this offense. As the court reminded, “A prior offense qualifies as a crime of violence because it is either an enumerated offense or it has as an element the use or attempted use of force.”

For his part, the defendant argued that his ABHAN conviction had no mens rea requirement. However, the court rested its holding on a South Carolina Supreme Court case that announced that “for a common law offense to constitute a crime, ‘the act must be accompanied by a criminal intent, or by such negligence or indifference to duty or to consequences as is regarded by law as equivalent to criminal intent.'” Guerrero-Robledo, No. 07-41151, slip op. at 11 (quoting State v. Ferguson, 395 S.E.2d 182, 183 (S.C. 1990)). Because a different South Carolina Supreme Court case had defined the first element of ABHAN as “an unlawful act,” the 5th Circuit concluded that, based on Ferguson, “the first element of ABHAN–an unlawful act–must indicate criminal intent.” Guerrero-Robledo, No. 07-41151, slip op. at 11. Thus, the 5th Circuit concluded that ABHAN “falls within the common meaning of aggravated assault, rendering it a crime of violence.”

Given the 5th Circuit’s reliance on an analysis of the elements of ABHAN, there’s little reason to think that this case won’t have wide use in the immigration context for DHS to argue that ABHAN is a crime of violence under the INA.

In another section, the 5th Circuit also held that when a defendant collaterally attacks a prior conviction on the ground that he was not represented by counsel, the defendant bears the burden of rebutting the presumption that he validly waived his right to counsel–at least when the conviction occurred after the right to state-appointed counsel was conclusively established. Guerrero-Robledo, No. 07-41151, slip op. at 3.

  • Share via Facebook
  • Share via LinkedIn
  • Share via Twitter
  • Share via Email

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Posted by César on April 21, 2009 on 2:18 pm Leave a Comment
Filed Under: Uncategorized

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Subscribe


Recent Posts

  • Federal court blocks deportation pause
  • Biden-Harris immigration priorities signal big shift, raise many questions
  • Biden’s Migration Policy Options
  • Migrating to Prison, one year later
  • With Biden returning to White House, private prison stock falls
  • New York Review of Books

Search

Social Media

Blawg 100 Honoree

The information contained on these pages must not be considered legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. This work by www.crImmigration.com is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.