Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court clarified standards for evaluating potential prior offenses under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA).[1] In an 8–1 decision written by Justice Elena Kagan, the Supreme Court held that judges may only look at the statutory elements of a crime, rather than the facts associated with that particular crime, "when the crime of which the defendant was convicted has a single, indivisible set of elements."[2] In his review of the case for SCOTUSblog, Daniel Richman opined that following the Court's decision, "[w]hether or not a prior conviction is going to 'count' will have to be determined as mechanically as possible."[3]
| Descamps v. United States | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued January 7, 2013 Decided June 20, 2013 | |
| Full case name | Matthew Robert Descamps, Petitioner v. United States Attorney- Dan B. Johnson, Spokane, Washington. |
| Docket no. | 11-9540 |
| Citations | 570 U.S. 254 (more) 133 S. Ct. 2276; 186 L. Ed. 2d 438; 2013 U.S. LEXIS 4698, 81 U.S.L.W. 4490 |
| Opinion announcement | Opinion announcement |
| Holding | |
| Under the Armed Career Criminal Act, judges may not look at facts associated with a crime (the "modified categorical approach") when criminal statutes contain a single, indivisible set of elements | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Kagan, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor |
| Concurrence | Kennedy |
| Concurrence | Thomas (in judgment) |
| Dissent | Alito |
| Laws applied | |
| Armed Career Criminal Act | |
See also
editReferences
editExternal links
edit- Text of Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013) is available from: CourtListener Google Scholar Justia Oyez (oral argument audio) Supreme Court (slip opinion) (archived)
 | This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |