Decision Alert: Supreme Court Rules That a Jury Must Unanimously Find Beyond a Reasonable Doubt Facts Affecting Conviction Under the Armed Career Criminal Act

On 21 June 2024 in Erlinger v. United Statesthe Supreme Court held that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments require a jury to find unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant’s prior offenses qualify for purposes of sentencing enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 USC § 924(e). Justice Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the Court. Chief Justice Roberts wrote a concurring opinion. Justices Kavanaugh and Jackson wrote dissenting opinions.

As summarized in Dykema’s April 2024 issue, the government charged Paul Erlinger under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), which makes possession of a firearm by a “dangerous” felon a felony and carries a maximum sentence of 10 years. Because Erlinger had already been convicted three times in state court of aggravated burglary, the government sought a mandatory sentence enhancement under the ACCA. Erlinger pleaded guilty to the § 922(g) charge, but argued that his decades-long convictions did not reflect the reformed, family-oriented, drug-free life he now led. The court agreed, but felt legally obligated to impose the enhanced sentence. After a change in Seventh Circuit law, Erlinger’s conviction was overturned. At resentencing, he argued that a jury, not a judge, should determine the predicate facts for the ACCA enhancement—whether his prior burglaries were committed on a single occasion or on several occasions. Instead, the district court made those factual findings and imposed an enhancement. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the conviction and sentence.

The Supreme Court reversed the Seventh Circuit’s ruling in a 6-3 decision, holding that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments secure the defendant the right to have a unanimous jury determine beyond a reasonable doubt whether the defendant’s prior offenses were committed on the same or different occasions for the purpose of imposing a sentence enhancement under the ACCA. Citing its 2000 decision in Apprendi vs. New Jerseythe Court argued that only a jury can establish facts that increase the range of sentencing and penalties for a defendant. The Court emphasized that this principle applies not only to a maximum sentence, but also when a judge considers increasing a defendant’s minimum sentence. The Court also relied on its 2013 decision in Alleyne v. United Stateswhich established that a judge cannot increase the sentence of a defendant and that any facts leading to an increase in that sentence must be presented to a jury.

Chief Judge Roberts concurred, holding that the Seventh Circuit should remand the trial court’s decision under the harmlessness principle. Judge Thomas concurred, emphasizing the need to reverse the court’s 1998 decision. Almendarez-Torrez v. United Stateswhich created an exception allowing a judge to establish the fact of a previous conviction even if it increased a defendant’s sentence, despite the fact that he had voted with the majority Almendarez-TorrezJustice Kavanaugh wrote a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Alito and Jackson joined in part, stating: Almendarez-Torrez has already addressed the issue at hand and allows a judge to apply sentencing enhancements based on recidivism. Judge Jackson argued in his dissenting opinion that the court should not have applied Learn to the ACCA and that facts relating to recidivism normally fall within the jurisdiction of the sentencing judge.

Bring away:

• Citing the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, the Court affirmed the defendant’s right to a jury trial on matters that could lead to an increase in sentence.

For more information, please contact Chantel Febus, James Azadian, Cory Webster, Christopher Sakauye, Monica Harris, Puja Valeraor A. Joseph Duffy, IV.