Decision Alert: Supreme Court Holds That a Unanimous Jury Must Determine Beyond a Reasonable Doubt Facts That Affect Sentencing Under the Armed Career Criminal Act

On June 21, 2024, in Erlinger v. United States, the Supreme Court held that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments require a jury to unanimously find beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant’s previous offenses qualify for purposes of enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 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 edition, the government charged Paul Erlinger under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), which makes it a crime for a “dangerous” felon to possess a firearm and carries a maximum 10-year sentence. Because Erlinger had three prior state court convictions for violent burglary felonies, the government sought a mandatory sentence enhancement under the ACCA. Erlinger pleaded guilty to the § 922(g) charge but argued that his decade-old convictions did not reflect the reformed, family-oriented, and drug-free life he lived now. The sentencing court agreed but felt obligated by the law to impose the enhanced sentence. After a shift in Seventh Circuit law, Erlinger’s sentence was vacated. At the resentencing hearing, he argued a jury, not a judge, must determine the predicate facts for the ACCA enhancement—whether his prior burglaries were committed on a single occasion or on distinct occasions. The district court, instead, made those fact findings and imposed the enhancement. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the conviction and sentence.

Reversing the Seventh Circuit in a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court held that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments secure a defendant’s right to have a unanimous jury determine beyond a reasonable doubt whether a defendant’s past offenses were committed on the same or separate occasions for purposes of imposing a sentencing enhancement under the ACCA. Relying on its 2000 decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, the Court reasoned that only a jury may find facts that increase the range of sentencing and penalties for a defendant. The Court emphasized that this principle does not apply only to a maximum sentence but also when a judge considers an increase to a defendant’s minimum sentence. The Court also relied on its 2013 decision in Alleyne v. United States, which held that a judge cannot increase a defendant’s exposure to punishment and that any fact that increases that exposure must be submitted to a jury.

Chief Justice Roberts concurred and opined that the Seventh Circuit, on remand, should review the sentencing court’s decision under the harmless error standard. Justice Thomas concurred and emphasized the need to overturn the Court’s 1998 decision in Almendarez-Torrez v. United States, which created an exception allowing a judge to find the fact of a prior conviction even if it increases a defendant’s punishment, despite the fact that he voted with the majority in Almendarez-Torrez. Justice Kavanaugh wrote a dissenting opinion, joined in part by Justices Alito and Jackson, stating that Almendarez-Torrez already addressed the issue at hand and allows a judge to apply sentence enhancements based on recidivism. Justice Jackson, in dissent, reasoned that the Court should not have applied Apprendi to the ACCA and that recidivism facts are usually under the purview of a sentencing judge.

Takeaway:

• In reliance on the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, the Court reinforced the defendant’s right to a jury trial for facts that can increase the length of sentencing.

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