Pleas & Sentencing – Constitutionality – Residual Clause

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: John Dawkins v. United States of America

Case No.: 15-3667

Officials: POSNER, FLAUM, and RIPPLE, Circuit Judges

Practice Area: Pleas & Sentencing – Constitutionality – Residual Clause

Reliance on prior convictions of appellant as consideration in sentencing was proper, reliance on residual clause of Armed Criminal Act was not necessary. Court did not err.

“Consider the following example: A thief picks the front‐ door lock of a house, enters, and steals property that he finds in the house. He does no damage to the lock. He “breaks” nothing. But obviously he is a burglar. He has used force to enter a house for an unlawful purpose, albeit without destroying anything. Suppose instead he breaks a small windowpane in the door, reaches in, and unlocks the door from the inside, then enters and steals. He is more of a burglar because he broke something? Is breakage a condition of bur‐ glary? Would the reader of this opinion feel more comfortable knowing that the burglar who stole the wallet on his dresser had picked the lock of his front door rather than forcing the door open by pushing on it? The important point is that the entry is unlawful, which is to say without authorization—the practical equivalent of the older term “breaking and entering.”

Motion Denied

Full Text

Attorney Derek A. Hawkins is the managing partner at Hawkins Law Offices LLC, where he heads up the firm’s startup law practice. He specializes in business formation, corporate governance, intellectual property protection, private equity and venture capital funding and mergers & acquisitions. Check out the website at www.hawkins-lawoffices.com or contact them at 262-737-8825.