What is the current state of the law on the "modified categorical approach" used by courts to determine whether a defendant was convicted of a crime based on a set of elements?

In a "narrow range of cases," when the statute at issue is divisible, we may employ a "modified categorical approach." Id. at 228385 (citation omitted). A divisible statute lists alternative sets of elements, in essence "several different crimes." Id. at 2284. "If at least one, but not all of those crimes matches the generic version, a court needs a way to find out which the defendant was convicted of." Id. at 2285. In these instances, we may look beyond the elements of the statute to the documents of conviction, i.e., to "the state charging document, a signed plea agreement, jury instructions, guilty pleas, transcripts of a plea proceeding and the judgment," to determine whether the petitioner was convicted of a set of elements that falls within the generic definition. FernandezRuiz v. Gonzales, 466 F.3d 1121, 1132 (9th Cir.2006) (citing

[810 F.3d 1132]

HernandezMartinez v. Ashcroft, 343 F.3d 1075, 1076 (9th Cir.2003) ). The modified categorical approach is thus "a tool" that allows us to apply the categorical approach. Descamps, 133 S.Ct. at 2285. Moreover, "[i]t retains the categorical approach's central feature: a focus on the elements, rather than the facts, of a crime," as well as its "basic method." Id.