These summaries are not intended as legal advice. Please contact a licensed attorney to discuss the specifics of your case.
Viewing entries tagged
colorado crimes
The Tenth Circuit has determined that a Colorado statute criminalizing possession of a controlled substance is more overbroad and indivisible with respect to the identity of the controlled substance. Instead, the court found that the different schedules of drugs are elements, but the individual substances listed on any given schedule are merely alternative means.
The full text of Johnson v. Barr can be found here:
The Ninth Circuit has determined that Colorado’s burglary statute is not divisible with respect to the structures that may constitute a dwelling, and that the definition of dwelling is a categorical match to the generic definition of burglary provided by the Supreme Court.
The full text of United States v. Jones can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/03/04/18-35457.pdf
The Tenth Circuit has determined that a conviction under the Aurora, Colorado Municipal Code is overbroad and divisible with respect to the definition of a crime involving moral turpitude. Because the petitioner could not prove that her conviction was under a subsection that did not match the definition of a crime involving moral turpitude, the court concluded that she had not met her burden of proving eligibility of cancellation for removal for nonlawful permanent residents.
The full text of Robles-Garcia v. Barr can be found here:
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/18/18-9511.pdf
The Tenth Circuit has determined that a Colorado statute that makes it unlawful “to manufacture, dispense, sell, distribute, possess, or to possess with intent to manufacture, dispense, sell, or distribute a controlled substance” is overbroad compared to the definition of an aggravated felony because it includes fraudulent offers to sell a controlled substance. The court then determined that the statute is indivisible between fraudulent and genuine offers to sell controlled substances.
The full text of United States v. Almanza-Vigil can be found here:
The Tenth Circuit has determined that a Colorado conviction for first degree criminal trespass is not a crime involving moral turpitude, and that the specific crime the defendant intends to commit during the trespass is not an element of the offense. In so doing, it overruled its prior precedent to the contrary.
The full text of Lujan Jimenez v. Sessions can be found here:
The Tenth Circuit has determined that theft under the Westminster, Colorado municipal code is overbroad and divisible as compared to the generic definition of a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) because it contains four separate crimes, and one subsection does not require the defendant to intend to permanently deprive the owner of the benefits of ownership. Notably, the Court recognized that the Board of Immigration Appeals has recently updated its definition of theft-related CIMTs, but noted that this updated definition would only apply prospectively to cases initiated after the issuance of the new definition.
The court then determined that the record of conviction was inconclusive as to which subsection of the theft statute the petitioner was convicted of violating. However, since he was seeking cancellation of removal, the burden was on him to prove that he had not been convicted of a CIMT, and he could not meet this burden with an inconclusive record. In so finding, the court joined the Ninth Circuit's recent split from the First Circuit on this issue.
The full text of Lucio-Rayos v. Sessions can be found here:
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/15/15-9584.pdf
The Tenth Circuit has determined that a Colorado conviction for giving false information to a police officer or city employee is not a crime involving moral turpitude. The court noted that fraud is not an explicit element of the offense, nor is there an implicit element of fraudulent intent in the statute because the commission of the crime does not necessarily entail fraud. There is no requirement that the false statement be material or be given with the intent to mislead the city official, to disrupt the official’s investigation, or to otherwise cause any harm or obtain any benefit. In sum, "[f]or a false statement to violate DMC § 38-40, it need not involve fraud, cause harm to the government or anyone else, obtain a benefit for the speaker, or be given with the intent to achieve any of these ends."
The full text of Flores-Molina v. Sessions can be found here:
