Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

statuteleaseparoledeportationlife imprisonment
statuteleaseparoledeportationlife imprisonment

Related Cases

Yacoubian; U.S. v.
View Case »
Romero v. Secretary, Department of Homeland Security
View Case »
Riley v. Greene
View Case »
Amezola-Garcia v. Lynch
View Case »
Toure v. Hott
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Fong Haw Tan v. Phelan

Facts

Petitioner, an alien, was convicted of murder under each of two counts of an indictment, each count charging petitioner with murder of a different person. The jury set punishment for each murder at life imprisonment. Petitioner was sentenced to prison for the period of his natural life by one judgment, construed by the appellate court to impose that sentence on petitioner for each of his convictions. A warrant of deportation was then issued. Petitioner was later paroled, released from prison and then taken into custody by the Immigration Service.

Petitioner, an alien, was convicted of murder under each of two counts of an indictment, each count charging petitioner with murder of a different person. The jury set punishment for each murder at life imprisonment. Petitioner was sentenced to prison for the period of his natural life by one judgment, construed by the appellate court to impose that sentence on petitioner for each of his convictions. A warrant of deportation was then issued. Petitioner was later paroled, released from prison and then taken into custody by the Immigration Service.

Issue

The main legal issue was whether the phrase 'sentenced more than once' under 8 U.S.C.S. 155(a) applied to the petitioner's situation, where he was sentenced to life imprisonment for two separate murders under one judgment.

The main legal issue was whether the phrase 'sentenced more than once' under 8 U.S.C.S. 155(a) applied to the petitioner's situation, where he was sentenced to life imprisonment for two separate murders under one judgment.

Rule

An alien who is 'sentenced more than once' to imprisonment for a term of one year or more because of conviction in this country of a crime involving moral turpitude committed after his entry shall, with exceptions not material here, be deported.

An alien who is 'sentenced more than once' to imprisonment for a term of one year or more because of conviction in this country of a crime involving moral turpitude committed after his entry shall, with exceptions not material here, be deported.

Analysis

The court determined that the phrase 'sentenced more than once' meant that an alien was sentenced once when after a conviction he was called before the bar and receives judgment whether for one or several crimes, with one or several terms of imprisonment. The court emphasized that the aim of the statute was to deport persons who commit a crime and are sentenced and then commit another and are sentenced again, thus requiring a strict reading of the term 'more than once.'

The court determined that the phrase 'sentenced more than once' meant that an alien was sentenced once when after a conviction he was called before the bar and receives judgment whether for one or several crimes, with one or several terms of imprisonment. The court emphasized that the aim of the statute was to deport persons who commit a crime and are sentenced and then commit another and are sentenced again, thus requiring a strict reading of the term 'more than once.'

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court's decision, concluding that the petitioner was not 'sentenced more than once' as defined by the statute.

The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court's decision, concluding that the petitioner was not 'sentenced more than once' as defined by the statute.

Who won?

The petitioner prevailed in the case because the Supreme Court found that the interpretation of 'sentenced more than once' did not apply to his situation, thus invalidating the basis for his deportation.

The petitioner prevailed in the case because the Supreme Court found that the interpretation of 'sentenced more than once' did not apply to his situation, thus invalidating the basis for his deportation.

You must be