Stokeling vs. United States

Introduction – Stokeling vs. United States
The U.S. Supreme Court heard a case that set the threshold lower for sentencing repeat offenders to stiffer prison terms.

The basic question posed in this case was whether stiffer prison sentences should be levied for repeat offenders like Denard Stokeling, defendant in Stokeling vs. the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Basics of the Stokeling Case
Denard Stokeling, arrested in 2014 in Miami Beach, Florida, for robbery of a restaurant. At the time of his arrest, he was asked if he had any firearms or ammunition in the backpack he was carrying.

Stokeling was previously convicted of kidnapping, robbery and home invasion. However, Stokeling’s lawyer claimed the conviction for robbery should not be considered in this case since Florida law does not require sufficient force of victims to constitute a “violent felony.”

Ref: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-sets-low-threshold-for-sentencing-repeat-violent-offenders-to-stiff-prison-terms/2019/01/15/fde7f3ea-18f1-11e9-88fe-f9f77a3bcb6c_story.html?utm_term=.d5bf765fee21

The ACCA (Armed Career Criminal Act) 18 U. S. C. §922(g)(1), 1984
The crux of this case included the court discussion on applicability of the ACCA law passed in 1984. As originally passed, the statutes of this law as written are:

“A convicted felon who possesses, receives, or transports a firearm in interstate commerce may be sentenced to imprisonment for up to two years, fined up to $10,000, or both.”

“The second sentence of the statute, the Armed Career Criminal Act of 19843 (“ACCA”), requires that a convicted felon who possesses, receives, or transports a firearm in commerce and who has three prior convictions for robbery, burglary, or both, must receive a sentence of at least fifteen years imprisonment and be fined up to $25,000.”
Ref:https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2793&context=flr

As written in repeal of parts of the ACCA in 2018, the law imposed no maximum term of imprisonment. Upon proof of a defendant’s prior convictions, sentencing of a career criminal should be discussed further.

Supreme Court Ruling
The Stokeling case showed a remarkable division among Supreme Court justices on the basic issue of se

Introduction – Stokeling vs. United States
The U.S. Supreme Court heard a case that set the threshold lower for sentencing repeat offenders to stiffer prison terms.

The basic question posed in this case was whether stiffer prison sentences should be levied for repeat offenders like Denard Stokeling, defendant in Stokeling vs. the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Basics of the Stokeling Case
Denard Stokeling, arrested in 2014 in Miami Beach, Florida, for robbery of a restaurant. At the time of his arrest, he was asked if he had any firearms or ammunition in the backpack he was carrying.

Stokeling was previously convicted of kidnapping, robbery and home invasion. However, Stokeling’s lawyer claimed the conviction for robbery should not be considered in this case since Florida law does not require sufficient force of victims to constitute a “violent felony.”

Ref: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-sets-low-threshold-for-sentencing-repeat-violent-offenders-to-stiff-prison-terms/2019/01/15/fde7f3ea-18f1-11e9-88fe-f9f77a3bcb6c_story.html?utm_term=.d5bf765fee21

The ACCA (Armed Career Criminal Act) 18 U. S. C. §922(g)(1), 1984
The crux of this case included the court discussion on applicability of the ACCA law passed in 1984. As originally passed, the statutes of this law as written are:

“A convicted felon who possesses, receives, or transports a firearm in interstate commerce may be sentenced to imprisonment for up to two years, fined up to $10,000, or both.”

“The second sentence of the statute, the Armed Career Criminal Act of 19843 (“ACCA”), requires that a convicted felon who possesses, receives, or transports a firearm in commerce and who has three prior convictions for robbery, burglary, or both, must receive a sentence of at least fifteen years imprisonment and be fined up to $25,000.”
Ref:https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2793&context=flr

As written in repeal of parts of the ACCA in 2018, the law imposed no maximum term of imprisonment. Upon proof of a defendant’s prior convictions, sentencing of a career criminal should be discussed further.

Supreme Court Ruling
The Stokeling case showed a remarkable division among Supreme Court justices on the basic issue of sentencing of career criminals.

In this 5 to 4 ruling, Justice Breyer, a liberal, agreed with four conservatives on the court, while Chief Justice Roberts, a conservative agreed with the three liberals of the court.

Conclusion – The Impact of the Stokeling Case on Similar Future Cases
With the bar set lower for prison sentencing of career criminals, it appears career criminals may face more serious implications for robbery as a “violent offense” as a result of the Supreme Court ruling.

ntencing of career criminals.

In this 5 to 4 ruling, Justice Breyer, a liberal, agreed with four conservatives on the court, while Chief Justice Roberts, a conservative agreed with the three liberals of the court.

Conclusion – The Impact of the Stokeling Case on Similar Future Cases
With the bar set lower for prison sentencing of career criminals, it appears career criminals may face more serious implications for robbery as a “violent offense” as a result of the Supreme Court ruling.

https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/brett-kavanaugh-rush-to-judgment-on-newest-scotus-judge/

 

Videos About Law:

Leave a Reply

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