40 F.4th 882
8th Cir.2022Background
- Stowell pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm; the PSR identified three prior violent felonies that could trigger the ACCA enhancement (one 2004 residential burglary; two 2006 battery convictions plus a 2006 firearm-possession count).
- The two battery convictions were charged in the same indictment but described as occurring on March 8, 2006 (battery against Victim 1) and March 11, 2006 (battery against Victim 2, same date as the firearm-possession charge).
- The district court relied on the PSR and the Eighth Circuit’s three-factor "different occasions" test (time lapse, physical distance, lack of substantive continuity) and found the two batteries were separate occasions, producing three ACCA predicates.
- Stowell challenged classification under ACCA on appeal, arguing (1) the two batteries were the same occasion and thus a single predicate, and (2) any facts increasing his mandatory minimum must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The Eighth Circuit majority affirmed, applying the three-factor test and circuit precedent permitting judicial factfinding about recidivism-related facts; a dissent would remand for reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court’s Wooden decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the two 2006 battery convictions were committed on the same "occasion" for ACCA purposes | Stowell: same occasion because convictions share the same conviction date and date-of-commission is not an element of battery | Government: PSR shows separate commission dates, different victims, and a 3-day lapse—so separate occasions | Held: Separate occasions (3-day lapse, different victims, lack of continuity) — count as two ACCA predicates |
| Whether facts establishing "different occasions" must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt | Stowell: under Apprendi/Alleyne such facts increase the mandatory minimum and require jury findings | Government: Eighth Circuit precedent treats these as recidivism facts that a judge may resolve | Held: Judge may resolve; Sixth Amendment argument rejected under circuit precedent |
| Whether relying on the PSR to determine dates and circumstances violated the Sixth Amendment | Stowell: PSR cannot supply necessary facts to increase statutory minimum | Government: PSR is an appropriate source for judge-found recidivism facts per precedent | Held: Use of PSR was permissible under Eighth Circuit law; no Sixth Amendment violation found |
| Whether the case should be remanded for reconsideration under Wooden v. United States | Stowell/dissent: Wooden requires a multi-factor, holistic inquiry and remand to allow the district court to apply Wooden | Government/majority: Wooden did not displace circuit precedent here; time lapse and other factors were dispositive | Held: Majority declined remand; dissent would remand for a Wooden-based reconsideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (establishes that facts increasing mandatory minimums must be proved to a jury)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (finder-of-fact rule for facts that increase penalties)
- Mathis v. United States, 579 U.S. 500 (limits sentencing court to the fact of conviction when matching state offense to generic federal offense elements)
- Wooden v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 1063 (clarifies the multi-factor approach to the ACCA "occasions" requirement)
- United States v. Harris, 794 F.3d 885 (Eighth Circuit: recidivism-related "different occasions" facts may be judge-found)
- United States v. Humphrey, 759 F.3d 909 (Eighth Circuit: standard of review—de novo—on whether prior convictions qualify as ACCA predicates)
- United States v. Willoughby, 653 F.3d 738 (Eighth Circuit: articulates three-factor different-occasions test)
- United States v. Faulkner, 826 F.3d 1139 (Eighth Circuit: court may examine prior-offense circumstances beyond bare fact of conviction)
- United States v. Williams, 976 F.3d 781 (Eighth Circuit decision later vacated and remanded by Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of Wooden)