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

jurisdictionstatuteplea

jurisdictionstatute

Related Cases

Sosa-Martinez v. United States AG

Facts

On July 19, 1995, Sosa-Martinez, a native and citizen of Honduras, was admitted into the United States as a lawful permanent resident. On May 24, 1998, he was involved in a fight where he stabbed a rival gang member three times with a pocket knife. He was charged with attempted second degree murder but entered a plea of nolo contendere to a reduced charge of aggravated battery. The INS later charged him with removal based on his conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude committed within ten years of his admission.

On July 19, 1995, Sosa-Martinez, a native and citizen of Honduras, was admitted into the United States at Miami, Florida, as a lawful permanent resident. On May 24, 1998, Sosa-Martinez, who was then nineteen years of age, was involved in a fight. During the fight, he stabbed the victim, a rival gang member, three times with a pocket knife.

Issue

Whether Sosa-Martinez's conviction for aggravated battery constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(i).

Rule

A crime involving moral turpitude is defined as an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes to his fellow men, contrary to accepted rules of right and duty. The inherent nature of the offense, as defined in the relevant statute, determines whether it involves moral turpitude.

Although the term 'moral turpitude' is not defined by statute, courts have stated that it involves an 'act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes to his fellow men, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and man.'

Analysis

The court analyzed the nature of aggravated battery under Florida law, which requires that the perpetrator intentionally commit simple battery and either cause great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement, or use a deadly weapon. The court concluded that any intentional battery that includes these elements constitutes a crime of moral turpitude. Therefore, Sosa-Martinez's conviction for aggravated battery met the criteria for moral turpitude.

We readily conclude that any intentional battery that includes, as an element of the offense either (1) that it caused great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement, or (2) involved the use of a deadly weapon constitutes a crime of moral turpitude.

Conclusion

The court dismissed Sosa-Martinez's petition for review for lack of jurisdiction, affirming that his aggravated battery conviction was a crime involving moral turpitude.

Because Sosa-Martinez was convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, committed within 10 years after his date of admission, and for which a sentence of one year or longer may be imposed, we dismiss Sosa-Martinez's petition for review for lack of jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(C).

Who won?

The United States government prevailed in the case because the court found that Sosa-Martinez's conviction for aggravated battery constituted a crime involving moral turpitude, thus stripping the court of jurisdiction to review the removal order.

The United States government prevailed in the case because the court found that Sosa-Martinez's conviction for aggravated battery constituted a crime involving moral turpitude.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Murillo-Espinoza v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

Kilburn v. Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya

Thaqi v. Jenifer

Ascencio-Rodriguez v. Holder

Agosto v. Immigration and Naturalization Service