In Atenia Lorenzo v. Sessions, --- F.3d ---, No. 15-70814 (9th Cir. 2018), the Ninth Circuit holds that Cal. Meth is overbroad -- that is, it is not a match for the federal definition of meth.
Specifically, under California law, a methamphetamine conviction may involve methamphetamine or it may involve methamphetamine’s “salts, isomers, [or] salts of its isomers,” including both “optical and geometrical . . . isomers."
Under federal law, however, "[w]ith respect to methamphetamine, [] the CSA applies only to optical isomers, not geometric isomers."
Based on this difference, the Court held as follows:
This could have big ramifications for criminal cases in terms of sentencing enhancements (perhaps even 851s) based on prior CA meth convictions, and of course 1326(d) motions.
Also, the Court's reasoning should apply to any other substances that have the same overbreadth issue -- e.g. if Cal. cocaine is defined more broadly than Fed cocaine (I don't know the answer yet).
I'm sure we will have more on this soon.
[W]e conclude the definition of “methamphetamine” applicable to convictions under California Health & Safety Code §§ 11378 and 11379(a) is broader than the definition of methamphetamine under the federal Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 812. Under the first step in the categorical approach, therefore, a conviction for a methamphetamine offense under §§ 11378 or 11379(a) does not qualify as a “controlled substance” violation under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i).
We further conclude the methamphetamine element applicable to a conviction under §§ 11378 or 11379(a) is not divisible, because the different varieties of methamphetamine covered by California law are alternative means of committing a single crime rather than alternative elements of separate crimes.
We therefore do not apply the modified categorical approach. Because the methamphetamine element of §§ 11378 and 11379(a) is overbroad and the modified categorical approach does not apply, we hold a methamphetamine conviction under §§ 11378 or 11379(a) does not qualify as a controlled substance offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i).
This could have big ramifications for criminal cases in terms of sentencing enhancements (perhaps even 851s) based on prior CA meth convictions, and of course 1326(d) motions.
Also, the Court's reasoning should apply to any other substances that have the same overbreadth issue -- e.g. if Cal. cocaine is defined more broadly than Fed cocaine (I don't know the answer yet).
I'm sure we will have more on this soon.
