You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

United States v. Gary Lamont Williams, A/k/a/ Hiriam King Williams

Citations: 47 F.3d 993; 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 736; 95 Daily Journal DAR 1323; 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 1680; 1995 WL 32009Docket: 94-50065

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; January 30, 1995; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In this case, the defendant, who pleaded guilty to armed bank robbery, appealed his 188-month sentence, challenging the enhancement applied under the Career Offender provisions of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. The enhancement was based on two prior convictions classified as 'crimes of violence,' one of which was a 1981 California conviction for second-degree burglary. The appellant argued that this burglary conviction did not meet the 'crime of violence' definition, as the relevant California statute broadly defines burglary. However, the court found that the burglary conviction qualified as a 'crime of violence' because the defendant had pleaded nolo contendere to unlawfully entering a residence with intent to commit larceny, an act meeting the federal criteria for violent crime under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2. The court also distinguished this case from United States v. Parker, noting that the charging documents explicitly stated unlawful entry, thus affirming the sentence enhancement. The ruling was upheld, affirming the application of the Career Offender provisions to the defendant's sentence.

Legal Issues Addressed

Career Offender Provisions under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1

Application: The sentencing enhancement under the Career Offender provisions applies to the defendant due to prior convictions classified as 'crimes of violence.'

Reasoning: Williams appeals this sentence, arguing that it was incorrectly enhanced due to the application of the Career Offender provisions in the United States Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1).

Comparison with United States v. Parker

Application: The court distinguishes the present case from United States v. Parker by emphasizing the explicit unlawful entry in Williams's charging documents.

Reasoning: Appellant cites United States v. Parker, where a prior conviction under California's second-degree burglary statute was deemed not a 'violent felony' for sentence enhancement due to the absence of specified 'unlawful or unprivileged entry' in the charging document.

Definition of 'Crime of Violence' under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2

Application: The court considers a prior burglary conviction as a 'crime of violence' because the defendant's conduct involved unlawful entry with intent to commit a crime, posing a risk of physical injury.

Reasoning: Williams contests that this burglary conviction does not qualify as a 'crime of violence,' as defined by the Guidelines, which includes offenses punishable by imprisonment exceeding one year that involve burglary of a dwelling or conduct posing a serious risk of physical injury.

Interpretation of California Penal Code § 459

Application: Despite the broad definition of burglary under California law, the defendant's specific charge of unlawful entry into a dwelling to commit larceny meets the federal standard for a violent crime.

Reasoning: The California statute defines burglary broadly, encompassing entry into various types of buildings with intent to commit theft or a felony, which can include non-dwelling structures.

Methodology for Determining 'Crime of Violence'

Application: The court applies both the statutory elements and the actual conduct charged to determine the nature of the offense, affirming the classification of the burglary as a 'crime of violence.'

Reasoning: The court may assess whether a conviction qualifies as a 'crime of violence' using two methods: examining the statutory elements of the crime or analyzing the actual conduct charged.