932 F.3d 437
6th Cir.2019Background
- James Hennessee pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)); at sentencing the government sought ACCA enhancement under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1) based on three prior violent-felony convictions.
- PSR identified three predicate convictions: two Tennessee convictions (aggravated robbery and attempted aggravated robbery arising from events on March 3, 2005) and two Alabama convictions (manufacturing a controlled substance and second-degree assault) that were charged together.
- District court treated the two Alabama convictions as a single predicate because it could not prove they were committed on different occasions; it also refused to consider non-elemental facts in Shepard-approved documents when assessing whether the two Tennessee offenses occurred on different occasions.
- Based on that evidentiary limitation the district court declined to apply the ACCA enhancement and imposed a non-ACCA sentence; the government appealed.
- Sixth Circuit majority held that sentencing courts may consider non-elemental facts (time, place, victim) contained in Shepard-approved documents for the ACCA ‘‘different-occasions’’ inquiry, and concluded the Tennessee plea colloquy showed the two offenses occurred on different occasions, vacating and remanding for resentencing under ACCA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Hennessee) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May a sentencing court consider only Shepard-approved sources when resolving whether prior offenses were "committed on occasions different from one another" under ACCA? | Yes; limited sources (Shepard/Taylor) suffice and avoid constitutional problems. | No explicit dispute on source restriction; dispute focused on whether facts in those sources may be considered. | Yes — limited to Shepard-approved documents (court reaffirms King on source restriction). |
| May a sentencing court consider non-elemental facts within Shepard-approved documents (e.g., time, location, victims) in the different-occasions analysis? | Yes — the government contended non-elemental facts in Shepard documents may be used. | No — Hennessee argued Sixth Circuit precedent precludes consideration of non-elemental facts; only elements may be used. | Yes — the majority holds district courts may consider both elemental and non-elemental facts contained in Shepard-approved documents for the different-occasions inquiry. |
| Did the Tennessee plea colloquy establish the two convictions were committed on different occasions? | The plea colloquy identified different victims, different locations, and different times — satisfying the Paige test. | Argued plea colloquy was equivocal and inconsistent with other documents; admission was only "basically true" and non-elemental. | Yes — under the Paige factors (discernible completion/beginning, possibility of withdrawal, different locations) all three prongs were satisfied; offenses were on different occasions. |
| Resulting sentencing consequence | ACCA enhancement applies; vacate and remand for resentencing with ACCA. | Maintain non-ACCA sentence. | Vacate sentence; remand for resentencing applying ACCA enhancement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (limits evidentiary sources a sentencing court may consult when a defendant pled guilty)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (categorical approach to predicate offenses under ACCA)
- Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013) (refuses use of extra‑statutory facts to redefine an indivisible statute for ACCA predicate analysis)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (reaffirms elements‑only focus and warns against using non‑elemental facts to enhance sentence)
- United States v. King, 853 F.3d 267 (6th Cir. 2017) (applies Taylor‑Shepard source restriction to ACCA different‑occasions analysis)
- United States v. Paige, 634 F.3d 871 (6th Cir. 2011) (articulates three‑prong test for "different occasions")
- United States v. Southers, 866 F.3d 364 (6th Cir. 2017) (applies Paige test; discusses review standard for different-occasions determinations)
- United States v. Brady, 988 F.2d 664 (6th Cir. en banc 1993) (discusses temporal proximity and counting multiple offenses as separate predicates)