Erlinger v. United States
602 U.S. 821
SCOTUS2024Background
- Paul Erlinger pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. §922(g); the government sought sentence enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. §924(e), which imposes a 15-year minimum if the defendant has three prior qualifying convictions "committed on occasions different from one another."
- At initial sentencing the judge found by a preponderance that Erlinger had three separate qualifying priors and imposed the ACCA 15-year minimum; two of the priors were later held not to qualify, so the district court vacated and resentenced.
- At resentencing the government relied on four 26-year-old burglary convictions; the district court again found (without a jury) they occurred on separate occasions and reimposed the 15-year ACCA sentence.
- Erlinger argued the “occasions” inquiry is factual and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments require a unanimous jury to find those facts beyond a reasonable doubt; the government conceded at appeal that a jury was required.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed; the Supreme Court granted certiorari, appointed counsel to defend the judgment, and resolved whether the Constitution requires a unanimous jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that prior offenses were committed on different occasions for ACCA purposes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Erlinger) | Defendant's Argument (United States / amici positions) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ACCA requirement that prior offenses be "committed on occasions different from one another" may be decided by a judge using a preponderance standard | The occasions inquiry is fact‑laden; the Fifth and Sixth Amendments require a unanimous jury to find any fact that increases statutory punishment beyond a reasonable doubt | Historically judges may determine recidivism facts; Almendarez‑Torres permits judicial factfinding about prior convictions and related details | Held: The Fifth and Sixth Amendments require a unanimous jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that prior offenses occurred on different occasions for ACCA purposes |
| Whether Almendarez‑Torres permits judges to decide the occasions inquiry | Almendarez‑Torres does not control because it is a narrow exception allowing only the fact of a prior conviction to be judicially found; occasions inquiry goes beyond that | Almendarez‑Torres authorizes judges to find facts about prior convictions including date/place, which in practice resolves the occasions question | Held: Almendarez‑Torres is a narrow exception limited to the fact of a prior conviction; it does not authorize a judge to resolve the occasions inquiry |
| Whether Shepard documents or other records allow judges to resolve the occasions inquiry without a jury | Even jurisdiction/date/plea documents (Shepard materials) often lack needed details and can be error‑prone; relying on them to increase punishment violates Apprendi/Alleyne | Judges may consult Shepard materials to identify the prior conviction and its elements and thereby resolve occasions in many cases efficiently | Held: Shepard materials are limited to identifying the prior conviction/elements; they do not permit judges to make the broader factual findings needed for the occasions inquiry |
| Whether practical concerns (prejudice, efficiency) justify denying jury determination | Jury resolution risks exposing juries to prejudicial evidence of past crimes and is inefficient; judges are better placed to assess long‑past facts | Constitutional rights cannot be overridden by efficiency or prejudice concerns; bifurcation and other tools can mitigate prejudice | Held: Practical concerns do not override the Fifth and Sixth Amendment demands; courts may mitigate prejudice (e.g., bifurcation), but a jury must decide the occasions issue unanimously beyond a reasonable doubt |
Key Cases Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (facts that increase prescribed penalty range must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) (a fact that increases mandatory minimum penalties must be submitted to a jury)
- Almendarez‑Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998) (recognized narrow exception allowing judicial finding of the fact of a prior conviction)
- Wooden v. United States, 595 U.S. 360 (2022) (ACCA’s occasions inquiry is factual and can require multi‑factor assessment of timing, proximity, character)
- Mathis v. United States, 579 U.S. 500 (2016) (limits on using Shepard materials; judge may determine only the fact of conviction and elements)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (authorizes limited use of certain documents to identify the prior conviction for sentencing purposes)