Federal Kidnapping Is Not A Crime Of Violence
Antwon Jenkins was convicted of federal kidnapping and using and carrying a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence. The firearm conviction required a consecutive sentence to the kidnapping charge. Jenkins argued on appeal that his federal kidnapping offense was not a crime of violence, and thus his gun charge under 18 U.S.C. 924(c) could not stand. The Seventh Circuit agreed.A conviction can constitute a “crime of violence” under the “force clause” of 924(c) or the “residual clause.” However, the Seventh Circuit in United States v. Cardena, 842 F.3d 959, 996 (7th Cir. 2016) held that the “residual clause” of 924(c) is unconstitutionally vague. Thus, if the kidnapping charge was not a crime of violence under the “force clause,” the 924(c) conviction was improper.
A conviction qualifies under the “force clause” if the crime “has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another.” 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(3)(A).
The Seventh Circuit held that “kidnapping as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a) does not require the use of force as an element.”
Because the kidnapping offense could not be used to support Jenkins’ conviction on the 924(c) charge, Jenkins’ conviction on the 924(c) count was reversed. See: United States v. Jenkins, No. No. 14-2898 (7th Cir. 2017).
Recommended for you
Ex Parte Communications By Judge With Jury Required Reversal Of Convictions
At Martin Bradley III’s trial for racketeering, mail fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering, the district court had two ex parte communications with the jury. Bradley’s defense lawyers did not become aware of notes until after his appeal. Bradley filed a 2255 motion arguing, in addition to other things, that the court had violated Rule…
Supervised Release Cannot Be Revoked After Supervision Term Ends
Anthony Holman’s supervised release was revoked for failing to pay restitution and picking up a new charge. However, the violation petition was not submitted until after Holman’s term of supervision had already expired. No summons was pending at the time either. Generally, whenever a U.S. Probation Officer believes that a defendant has violated his or…
Burrage Applies Retroactively To Cases On Collateral Review
In Burrage v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 881 (2014), the Supreme Court held that “at least where use of the drug distributed by the defendant is not an independently sufficient cause of the victim’s death or serious bodily injury, a defendant cannot be liable under the penalty enhancement provision of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C)…
