Marrero v. United States
570 U.S. 929
SCOTUS2013Background
- Marrero v. United States granted forma pauperis and certiorari; judgment vacated and remanded to Third Circuit per Descamps v. United States.
- Third Circuit held Marrero qualifies as a career offender under USSG §4B1.1 based on a Pennsylvania simple assault conviction (18 Pa. C.S. §2701(a)).
- PA §2701(a) covers attempting to cause or causing bodily injury; court inferred petitioner admitted intentional/knowing conduct from plea.
- Alito dissents that the PA statute is divisible and should be analyzed under the modified categorical approach, consulting the plea colloquy to map to a specific statutory phrase.
- Petitioner argues the remand is unnecessary and the petition should be denied; Alito would deny and dissent from remand.
- Remand to Third Circuit for further consideration in light of Descamps is viewed as pointless by Alito.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the Pennsylvania simple assault statute divisible? | Marrero: statute divisible, allows modified categorical approach | United States: modified categorical approach applicable to divisible statutes | Divisible statute; modified categorical approach may apply |
| May plea colloquy determine which statutory phrase covered the conviction? | Marrero: plea shows intentional/knowing conduct | United States: plea colloquy can show intent | Plea colloquy may determine the applicable conduct |
| Is remand necessary or should petition be denied? | Marrero: remand pointless; petition should be denied | United States: remand required for proper analysis | Remand to Third Circuit affirmed as necessary |
Key Cases Cited
- Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29 (2009) (permits looking at plea colloquy to map conviction to a statutory phrase)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (permits using colloquy to determine which conduct was admitted)