United States v. Evelio Santana
23-2695
7th Cir.Jul 24, 2025Background
- Evelio Santana pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm as a convicted felon in the Southern District of Indiana.
- His sentence was enhanced under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) based on three prior violent felony convictions deemed to have occurred on different occasions.
- At sentencing, the district judge—not a jury—made the different-occasions determination using a preponderance of the evidence standard, consistent with Seventh Circuit precedent at the time.
- While Santana's appeal was pending, the Supreme Court decided Erlinger v. United States, clarifying that such determinations must be made by a unanimous jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Santana argued on appeal that his sentence must be vacated due to this procedural error.
- The Seventh Circuit reviewed under plain-error review, as there was no valid waiver given evolving precedent, and ultimately vacated Santana’s sentence and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who must decide 'different occasions'? | District judge could decide under then-applicable precedent. | Must be a jury, per recent Supreme Court decision. | Jury must make finding beyond reasonable doubt (per Erlinger). |
| Waiver of right to jury trial | Santana's lawyer said judge could decide, so waiver applies. | Statement only summarized then-current law, not a waiver. | No valid waiver; standard is plain error review. |
| Did the error affect substantial rights? | No significant impact because evidence was overwhelming. | Enhancement increased possible sentence; error is prejudicial. | Enhanced sentence affected substantial rights; plain error established. |
| Fairness/integrity of proceedings | Result would have been same; error harmless. | Reasonable jury could find reasonable doubt on different occasions. | Error undermined fairness/integrity; remand for resentencing required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024) (jury must determine on different-occasions factor under ACCA, unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Wooden v. United States, 595 U.S. 360 (2022) (guides the analysis of what constitutes "different occasions" under ACCA)
- Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) (Sixth Amendment requires jury determination of facts that increase penalty)
- Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968) (right to jury trial is fundamental in criminal cases)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain-error review standard set out)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) (failure to submit element to jury is not structural error)
- Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (1997) (plain error review in the context of omitted jury findings)