933 F.3d 1009
8th Cir.2019Background
- Defendant Jason Daniel Sims pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and was sentenced as an Armed Career Criminal (ACCA) based on four prior convictions: two Arkansas residential burglaries and two serious drug offenses.
- The ACCA imposes a 15-year mandatory minimum if a defendant has three or more prior violent felonies or serious drug offenses; burglary is enumerated as a violent felony but must match the "generic" definition of burglary under the categorical approach.
- Arkansas’s residential burglary statute (as written at the time) defined a "residential occupiable structure" to include vehicles where any person lives or vehicles customarily used for overnight accommodation.
- Sams appealed, arguing Arkansas’s inclusion of vehicles (especially ordinary vehicles occupied by homeless persons) makes the statute broader than the generic burglary definition and therefore his prior convictions should not count under the ACCA; the Eighth Circuit initially agreed and vacated his sentence.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari, decided Stitt (holding burglary of a structure or vehicle adapted or customarily used for overnight accommodation qualifies as generic burglary), and remanded for this court to decide whether Arkansas’s additional language covering vehicles "where any person lives" is likewise generic.
- Applying Stitt and related precedents, the Eighth Circuit concluded Arkansas’s residential burglary statute sufficiently matches generic burglary (because it targets places used as residences and thus presents the same risk of violent confrontation) and affirmed the district court’s judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Arkansas residential burglary qualifies as "generic burglary" under the ACCA | Sims: statute is broader because it covers ordinary vehicles in which a homeless person lives, which are not "building or structure" in the generic sense | Government: statute targets vehicles used for habitation or customarily for overnight accommodation and thus fits generic burglary as interpreted in Stitt | Held: Arkansas statute sufficiently matches generic burglary; prior convictions qualify as violent felonies |
| Whether courts should apply the categorical approach, ignoring actual facts of prior offense | Sims: categorical approach forbids considering facts; statute’s language makes it overbroad on its face | Government: categorical approach applies but statute’s text targets residential risk matching generic burglary | Held: categorical approach applies; under it the statute’s elements are sufficiently narrow to qualify |
| Whether vehicles occupied occasionally by persons (e.g., homeless) fall outside generic burglary | Sims: such vehicles lack customary adaptation and notice—statute therefore overbroad | Government: risk of violent confrontation exists regardless of vehicle appearance or frequency of use | Held: Occupied vehicles present similar risk; inclusion does not render statute non-generic |
| Whether Stitt’s holding resolves Arkansas statute’s additional "where any person lives" language | Sims: Stitt did not address that language so vacancy remained | Government: Stitt’s reasoning extends to vehicles used as residences; Arkansas fits within that reasoning | Held: Stitt’s focus on risk of violent confrontation dictates that Arkansas language qualifies as generic burglary |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Sims, 854 F.3d 1037 (8th Cir. 2017) (prior Eighth Circuit decision vacating sentence on overbreadth grounds)
- United States v. Stitt, 139 S. Ct. 399 (2018) (Supreme Court holding burglary of structures or vehicles adapted or customarily used for overnight accommodation is generic burglary)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (describing the categorical approach and element-matching rule)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (defining "generic burglary" for ACCA purposes)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (limits on what court may consider in determining prior convictions under the categorical approach)