WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court says a man should not have gotten a harsher penalty for a crime because a judge had investigated his previous offenses.
The 8-1 decision came Thursday in the case of Matthew Descamps, a Washington state man convicted of possessing a firearm in 2005. He could have been sentenced to a decade in prison. But since he had been convicted of multiple crimes, he fell under the Armed Career Criminal Act. That requires a sentence of at least 15 years if the defendant has three prior convictions for violent felonies.
Descamps argued that his 1978 conviction for burglary wasn’t violent and didn’t count. The federal judge decided to investigate the record himself and decided that it did count. Deschamps appealed, and the Supreme Court reversed the decision.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
-
UncategorizedCarl Testa to perform for Make-A-Wish Maine fundraiser at Mixers
-
Boston Red Sox
Bello becoming Red Sox’s most exciting starting pitching prospect in years
-
Business
CMP to seek 3-year rate hike that would raise average bill by $10
-
Business
Sen. Susan Collins blocks NOAA nominee’s confirmation to protest new lobstering rules
-
Arts & Entertainment
Ray Liotta, ‘Goodfellas’ and ‘Field of Dreams’ star, dies
Success. Please wait for the page to reload. If the page does not reload within 5 seconds, please refresh the page.
Enter your email and password to access comments.
Hi, to comment on stories you must . This profile is in addition to your subscription and website login.
Already have one? .
Invalid username/password.
Please check your email to confirm and complete your registration.
Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or login to participate in the conversation. Here’s why.
Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.