Indiana Conviction for Felony Battery is a Crime of Violence for Career Offender Purposes

The Sixth Circuit just held, in an unpublished decision (U.S. v. Mendez), that a conviction under Indiana's Felony Battery statute is a crime of violence under the career offender provisions of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a).

The main issue on appeal was whether the defendant's conviction under an Indiana statute, which criminalized battery "result[ing] in bodily injury to….the other person," qualified as "crime of violence" under § 4B1.2(a).  While the outcome may seem obvious at first blush, this case serves as a reminder that the Sixth Circuit will carefully analyze convictions that serve as a predicate for Career Offender or Armed Career Criminal sentencing enhancements, if the issue is preserved and raised on appeal.

In the course of analyzing the issue, the Court restated the current state of the law--that, in order to qualify as a "crime of violence," a conviction must encompass "the use, attempted use or threatened use of physical force."  "Physical force" in the context of crimes of violence, means "violent force--that is force capable of causing physical pain or injury to another person." Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133, 140 (2010).  However, not all batteries or offensive touchings are considered "crimes of violence."  Id. at 139.

 In Mr. Mendez' case, the Sixth Circuit held that his conviction for Felony Battery qualified as "crime of violence," finding, through deductive reasoning and an examination of the lesser offenses, that in order to rise to the level of a felony in Indiana, a conviction for Felony Battery necessarily entails the infliction of physical pain or injury.  The Court rejected Mr. Mendez' arguments that any such physical pain or injury must rise to the level of "serious bodily injury" before qualifying as a crime of violence, citing the Supreme Court's rejection of this exact argument in U.S. v Castelman, 695 F.3d 582, 590 (6th Cir. 2012).

Bottom line:  Carefully scrutinize and, where warranted, challenge any predicate convictions related to Career Offender or Armed Career Offender status because the Court of Appeals will carefully consider any well-founded arguments no matter how obvious the issue may seem at first blush.

--

Gary K. Springstead
Springstead & Bartish Law
Attorney Profile