Sykes v. United States
131 S. Ct. 2267
| SCOTUS | 2011Background
- Sykes, a felon in possession of a firearm, pleaded guilty and had three prior felonies including two robberies; the third was Indiana’s vehicle flight offense under Ind. Code §35-44-3-3. (a) Subsection (a)(3) makes fleeing from an officer a misdemeanor; (b)(1)(A) elevates to a Class D felony if a vehicle is used. (b)(1)(B) elevates if the flight creates a substantial risk of bodily injury; (b)(2) and (b)(3) further elevate for serious injury or death. Indiana’s statute thus contains four escalating vehicular flight offenses spanning simple to aggravated flight. The District Court treated the (b)(1)(A) flight as a violent felony for ACCA purposes; the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve whether Indiana’s facially broad (b)(1)(A) category falls within ACCA’s residual clause. The case centers on the categorical approach under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii) and whether vehicle flight ordinarily presents a serious potential risk of physical injury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Indiana's vehicle-flight offense (b)(1)(A) is a violent felony under ACCA's residual clause. | Sykes contends the flight offense lacks the requisite risk. | The Government argues the ordinary case of vehicle flight is inherently risky. | Yes; vehicle flight ordinarily presents a serious risk. |
| Whether Begay's purposeful, violent, and aggressive test applies to this non-enumerated offense. | Sykes argues Begay should apply to classify risk. | Government maintains Begay's test is not strictly controlling for this offense. | Begay does not control; risk-based approach applies. |
| How to treat Indiana's b(1)(A) vs. b(1)(B) structurally for ACCA purposes. | Sykes asserts b(1)(A) is nonrisky; b(1)(B) covers the risk. | Government argues both reflect escalating dangers with b(1)(A) per se risky. | Structural reading confirms violence under ACCA for ordinary flight. |
Key Cases Cited
- James v. United States, 550 U.S. 192 (U.S. 2007) (categorical approach to violent felonies under ACCA)
- Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (U.S. 2008) (tests for 'purposeful, violent, and aggressive' crimes in ACCA residual clause)
- Chambers v. United States, 555 U.S. 122 (U.S. 2009) (statistical evidence can inform ACCA risk assessment; strict application of residual clause)
- Woodward v. State, 770 N. E. 2d 897 (Ind. App. 2002) (Indiana case interpreting vehicle flight as involving knowing flight from police)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (U.S. 2007) (police pursuit dangers; use of force in vehicle stops)