|
People v. Borja (1600 words) |
 | Borja complained that he was not advised of 1996 changes in the immigration laws that eliminated the Attorney General' s power to grant waivers of deportation for a noncitizen who had suffered an aggravated felony, and was not advised of a 1998 decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (In re Magallanes (Bd. |
| Borja sought a retroactive change in his sentence in order to avoid the immigration consequences; he sought imposition of a sentence different from the one that had been intended, imposed and served. |
| Borja argued modification was justified on the basis that he had not been fully informed of all the immigration consequences of his guilty plea and because the one-day reduction in the local custody imposed would mean that his 1994 offense would no longer be considered an aggravated felony mandating deportation by the INS. |
| Borja v. State (12/16/94) ap-1383 (1398 words) |
| Borja does not challenge the similarity of California's and Alaska's definitions of robbery, but he does assert that California's offense of being an accessory to a felony, California Penal Code 32, is not sufficiently similar to Alaska's offense of first-degree hindering prosecution, AS 11.56.770(a)-(b). |
| Borja next argues that the elements defining his California offense are broader than the elements of first-degree hindering prosecution, so that Borja might be guilty of being an accessory to robbery under California law without necessarily violating Alaska's hindering prosecution statute. |
| Borja also suggests that a person who provided a felon with food (and who acted with the requisite intent of helping the felon escape arrest, trial, conviction or punishment) would be guilty as an accessory to the felony under California law but would not be guilty of hindering prosecution under Alaska law. |
Feeds |
Contact