Monday, July 28, 2014         

 Print   Email   Comment | View 2 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

Court panel upholds longer prison term

By Nigel Duara

Associated Press


A federal appeals court panel has rejected a Hawaii man’s objection to a longer sentence imposed in part because of a decade-old conviction for property destruction, an offense that a judge called a “crime of violence.”

Ashford Kaipo Spencer was convicted of two federal drug-trafficking felonies. At sentencing the district court determined Spencer was a “career offender” because he had two prior convictions for crimes of violence.

He argued the property destruction count wasn’t violence, but the court affirmed that it was.

Spencer, of Wai­ma­nalo, was sentenced to 17 years in prison for selling meth­am­pheta­mine to someone cooperating with law enforcement. A jury found him guilty in 2011 of selling about two ounces of meth for $6,000 and $5,500 in April and June 2009.

His prior felony convictions in state court also involved kidnapping and robbery, to which Spencer didn’t object as being violent. But his objection to the property crime being categorized as violent took the case to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

To prove that a crime was violent under federal sentencing guidelines, the crime has to either constitute a use of force or attempted use of force against a person, or be a burglary, arson or a crime involving the use of explosives.

But it comes with a broad caveat: “conduct that pre­sents a serious potential risk of physical injury to
another.” And it’s that last bit under which a district court judge enhanced Spencer’s sentence.

The law isn’t as straightforward as interpreting the statute’s language, Judge Jay Bybee of the three-judge 9th Circuit panel said in the opinion. The U.S. Supreme Court has held differing opinions in several cases on the definition of “violent felony.”

Fleeing from law enforcement in Indiana and an attempted burglary in Florida were counted by the Supreme Court as violent felonies; drunken driving in New Mexico and failure to report to prison in Illinois were not.

“It seems relatively apparent that ‘intentionally damaging property and thereby recklessly placing another person in danger of death or bodily injury … involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another,” Bybee wrote.

 Print   Email   Comment | View 2 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

You must be subscribed to participate in discussions
By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. Because only subscribers are allowed to comment, we have your personal information and are able to contact you. If your comments are inappropriate, you may receive a warning, and if you persist with such comments you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, email commentfeedback@staradvertiser.com.
Leave a comment

Please login to leave a comment.
HaoleGuy wrote:
I'm glad that the Judge imposed the harsher sentence. Kidnapping, robbery and now selling meth, and he wants a lighter sentence? Better for all of us he will be locked up for a long time.
on August 3,2013 | 04:25AM
residenttaxpayer wrote:
Stop whining....do the crime now do the time.....
on August 3,2013 | 08:00AM
Latest News/Updates
Political Radar
`My side’

Political Radar
‘He reminds me of me’

Bionic Reporter
Needing a new knee

Warrior Beat
Monday musings

Small Talk
Burning money

Political Radar
On policy

Warrior Beat
Apple fallout