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

felony

defendantjurisdictionappealtestimonyfelony

Related Cases

Sales v. Sessions

Facts

Cornelio Dela Cruz Sales, Jr., a native of the Philippines, was convicted in 1995 in California of second degree murder on an aiding and abetting theory after he participated in a shooting incident where a friend killed a victim. Sales was armed and helped load the weapon used in the crime. After serving nineteen years in prison, he faced removal proceedings under federal law as an alien convicted of an aggravated felony.

Sales was convicted in 1995 in California of second degree murder. We summarize what happened as reported in the unpublished Court of Appeal decision affirming the conviction. The crime occurred on January 14, 1995, after an incident where Sales and a group of friends, including Vilay Khounsiriwong and Kloi Khounsirivong, drove to a house party where another friend was reported to be in trouble. There was testimony he needed 'backup.' Sales was armed with a pistol. When they arrived, Sales helped load the pistol. Vilay Khounsiriwong then took the pistol, got out of the car, and approached the house. Spotting another young man in a car parked at the curb, Khounsiriwong opened fire into the car, killing the victim.

Issue

Whether Sales' conviction for second degree murder under California's aiding and abetting law qualifies as an aggravated felony under federal law, particularly in light of the natural and probable consequences doctrine.

The principal issue we must decide is whether, given the nature of the California law of natural and probable consequences, the conviction for aiding and abetting murder on a natural and probable consequences theory also qualifies as an aggravated felony.

Rule

A conviction for aiding and abetting a removable offense in California is also a removable offense under federal law unless it can be shown that the law has been applied in a 'special' way that deviates from the generic definition.

The Supreme Court, in 2007, reviewed California's law on aiding and abetting, which like that of many jurisdictions looks to the natural and probable consequences of an act the defendant intended.

Analysis

The court applied the principles established in Gonzalez v. Duenas-Alvarez, determining that Sales did not demonstrate that California's aiding and abetting law was applied in a manner that was 'special' or different from the generic definition. The court noted that the facts of Sales' case did not support his claim that the law was broader than federal definitions, as he actively participated in the crime.

Sales contends that he has made a showing sufficient to meet the requirements the Supreme Court set forth for a result different than the result in Duenas-Alvarez. He argues that California law on aiding and abetting is broader than that described in Duenas-Alvarez, so as to reach crimes removed from the defendant's actual conduct and thus beyond what the Supreme Court envisioned as 'natural and probable consequences.' Sales cites a recent decision by the California Court of Appeal that he argues demonstrates that California allows a defendant to be convicted of murder on a theory of natural and probable consequences when the defendant intended only to aid and/or abet a non-violent crime.

Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the BIA's decision, concluding that Sales' conviction for second degree murder as an aider and abettor was indeed an aggravated felony for removal purposes.

We therefore cannot read much into the opinion of the Justices in Cruz-Santos about the current state of the aiding and abetting law of California. There is certainly nothing that would suggest that California applied the doctrine of natural and probable consequences at the time of Petitioner's conviction in any way that deviated from the way the United States Supreme Court described it in Duenas-Alvarez.

Who won?

The government prevailed in the case, as the court upheld the BIA's ruling that Sales' conviction constituted an aggravated felony under federal law.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Lawal v. AG

Maniar v. Garland

Rajan v. International Bus. Solutions, Ltd.

Ramirez-Martinez; U.S. v.

Shu Wen Sun v. Board of Immigration Appeals