United States v. Oaks, No. 06-6056 (6th Cir. Dec. 15, 2011) (published). Panel of Judges Kennedy, Martin, and Hood (E.D. Ky.). Judge Hood dissented. Judge Martin wrote the majority opinion.
Felon in possession.
Prior conviction for escape qualified as a prior conviction for ACCA purposes. Defendant appealed. Sixth Circuit affirmed. Supreme Court granted application for writ of certiorari and vacated. Remanded for reconsideration in light of Chambers v. United States, 555 U.S. 122 (2009).
Sixth Circuit then remanded to the district court for a determination of the type of facility and level of security at issue in the prior escape: custody of a county sheriff's department. The district court found that the defendant was in the county jail on felony charges (evading arrest, reckless endangerment, attempted agg. robbery, theft, agg. burglary), but had been taken to court for an appearance. He ran from the courtroom. The district court found that while the jail was a secure facility the courtroom was not.
So, appellate court found that the escape was from non-secure custody.
The question was whether the offense makes the defendant"significantly more likely than others to attack, or physically to resist, an apprenhender" such that there was a serious potential risk of physical injury. The appellate court looked to the U.S. Sentencing Commission report from Chambers to find statistics. The court found that escape from nonsecure custody is seldom violent.
The court held "that escape from 'nonsecure custody' is not a violent felony for sentencing purposes." The court does note that there may be situations in which a courtroom is a secure facility. . . . But the courtroom here was not a secure facility.
Remanded for resentencing.
Judge Hood (E.D. Ky.) dissented. He concluded that the defendant was in law-enforcement custody, so he was more likely to attack or physically resist, producing a serious potential risk of physical injury. He would have found that the offense was a violent felony.
