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

pleahabeas corpusfelonyprobationdeportationnaturalizationguilty plea
pleahabeas corpusfelonyprobationdeportationguilty plea

Related Cases

Munroe v. Ashcroft
View Case »
Maldonado de Vasquez v. Ilchert
View Case »
Olmos v. Holder
View Case »
Yang; Immigration and Naturalization Service v.
View Case »
Gertsenshteyn v. Department of Justice
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Plummer v. Ashcroft

Facts

Christopher Plummer, a native and citizen of Jamaica, entered the United States on August 26, 1992. He pled guilty to larceny in the second degree in a Connecticut state court and was sentenced to three years of incarceration (execution to be suspended after serving 18 months) and three years probation. The Immigration and Naturalization Service initiated removal proceedings against him, asserting that he was removable under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). The immigration judge found that his conviction constituted a 'theft offense' for purposes of deportation.

Christopher Plummer, a native and citizen of Jamaica, entered the United States on August 26, 1992. He pled guilty to larceny in the second degree in a Connecticut state court and was sentenced to three years of incarceration (execution to be suspended after serving 18 months) and three years probation.

Issue

Whether Plummer's conviction for larceny in the second degree constitutes an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(G) and whether he is eligible for discretionary relief under former INA 212(c) and 212(h).

Whether Plummer's conviction for larceny in the second degree constitutes an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(G) and whether he is eligible for discretionary relief under former INA 212(c) and 212(h).

Rule

A conviction is defined under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(48) as a formal judgment of guilt entered by a court, and aggravated felonies include theft offenses for which the term of imprisonment is at least one year.

A conviction is defined under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(48) as a formal judgment of guilt entered by a court, and aggravated felonies include theft offenses for which the term of imprisonment is at least one year.

Analysis

The court determined that Plummer's guilty plea and the imposed sentence met the criteria for a conviction under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(48). The court found that his conviction for larceny in the second degree was indeed a theft offense, qualifying as an aggravated felony due to the length of the sentence imposed. Furthermore, the court ruled that Plummer was not entitled to discretionary relief under the repealed INA provisions because he was a lawful permanent resident who had committed an aggravated felony.

The court determined that Plummer's guilty plea and the imposed sentence met the criteria for a conviction under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(48).

Conclusion

The court denied Plummer's application for habeas corpus relief from deportation, affirming that his conviction constituted an aggravated felony and that he was ineligible for discretionary relief.

The court denied Plummer's application for habeas corpus relief from deportation.

Who won?

The government prevailed in the case, as the court upheld the deportation order based on Plummer's conviction being classified as an aggravated felony.

The government prevailed in the case, as the court upheld the deportation order based on Plummer's conviction being classified as an aggravated felony.

You must be