Opinion ID: 4576552
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Larios’s Crime of Conviction

Text: Under Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005), courts may consult only “a limited class of documents” specified by the Supreme Court to determine which alternative version of the crime formed the basis for a petitioner’s conviction. Mathis, 136 S. Ct. at 2249. These so-called Shepard documents are comprised of the “charging document, written plea agreement, transcript of plea colloquy, and any explicit factual finding by the trial judge to which the defendant assented,” but not “police reports or complaint applications.” Shepard, 544 U.S. at 16. Here, the transcript of Larios’s plea colloquy reveals that he was convicted “under subsection (a), [of a] threat to commit . . . a crime of violence.” A.R. 384. During the colloquy, the judge also confirmed that Larios was pleading guilty to “threatening to commit an assault upon a person . . . by—causing [him] to be in fear.” A.R. 391. Thus, in full, the alternative offense that formed the basis for Larios’s conviction is “threaten[ing] to commit any crime of violence 12 with the purpose to terrorize another . . . or in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror.” N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:12-3(a). The remaining question before us is whether that alternative is a CIMT.