NACDL - Almanza-Arenas v. Lynch

Almanza-Arenas v. Lynch

Amicus Curiae Brief of the Ninth Circuit Federal Public and Community Defenders, The California Public Defenders Association and individual California Public Defender offices, and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Petitioner-Appellant During Pendency of Rehearing En Banc.

Almanza-Arenas v. Lynch

Case Details

Case No.: 09-71415 & 10-73715
Jurisdiction: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

Key Topics in the Case

White Collar | Rule of Lenity | Immigration Consequences | "Modified Categorical Approach" | Statutory Interpretation-Construction | Divisibility | Statute-Offense Elements

Documents

Almanza-Arenas-v-Lynch-Amicus.PDF

Prior Decision

Decision below (panel decision) 771 F.3d 1184 (9th Cir. Nov. 10, 2014).

Argument(s)

Rendon faithfully applied Descamps's "Elements-Based" approach and correctly held that state law determines a statute's elements. The government and Judge Graber's approach is inconsistent with Descamps, resurrects Aguila-Montes, and creates tension with a century of state law. State law – not Shepard documents – determines a statute's elements. In California, the Shepard-approved documents will not necessarily reflect a crime's elements. Courts must look to state law—rather than the Shepard documents—to identify an offense's elements. At a minimum, this Court should apply the rule of lenity. Applying these principles reveals that California vehicle theft contains a single, indivisible set of elements. The Almanza approach permits defense attorneys to accurately advise their clients of immigration consequences.