43 F.4th 892
8th Cir.2022Background
- Robinson pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm; the district court applied the ACCA and imposed the 15-year mandatory minimum.
- The district court relied on three prior Arkansas residential burglary convictions (June 14, 2011; June 29, 2011; July 5, 2011) as ACCA violent-felony predicates.
- The three burglaries involved different homes, different victims, different items taken, and occurred on different days within a roughly three-week span.
- Robinson was arrested the same day for the first two burglaries and later arrested separately for the third; all three convictions were entered and sentenced on the same date in state court (concurrent 10-year terms).
- On appeal Robinson argued (1) the first two burglaries were part of a single criminal episode and thus not separate ACCA predicates, (2) Wooden undermines the separateness analysis, and (3) the Sixth Amendment precludes a judge from finding the separate-occasions fact at sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prior burglary convictions were "on occasions different from one another" under the ACCA | Robinson: first two burglaries were a single criminal episode, not separate predicates | Government: offenses occurred on different days, at different locations, vs different victims — therefore separate | Court: Affirmed — each burglary was a separate criminal episode (different days, places, victims) |
| Effect of arrests/convictions occurring on same date on separateness | Robinson: same arrest/conviction date indicates a single episode | Government: separateness concerns when crimes were committed, not when charged or tried | Court: Rejected Robinson; separateness is determined by when offenses were committed, not arrest/conviction dates |
| Impact of Wooden v. United States on separateness analysis | Robinson: Wooden may require treating multiple burglaries as one episode | Government: Wooden is distinguishable (same night/unit row continuous course vs here separate days/locations) | Court: Wooden is distinguishable; does not alter result |
| Sixth Amendment challenge to judge-found predicate facts at sentencing | Robinson: Judge violated Sixth Amendment by finding separate-occasions facts not charged or admitted | Government: Recidivism and separateness are not elements for jury; judge may resolve at sentencing | Court: Rejected Robinson per Eighth Circuit precedent; no Sixth Amendment violation |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mattox, 27 F.4th 668 (8th Cir. 2022) (de novo review of whether a prior conviction qualifies as an ACCA predicate)
- United States v. Humphrey, 759 F.3d 909 (8th Cir. 2014) (a predicate must be a separate and distinct criminal episode)
- United States v. Deroo, 304 F.3d 824 (8th Cir. 2002) (separate-occasions requirement precedent)
- United States v. Pledge, 821 F.3d 1035 (8th Cir. 2016) (three relevant factors: time lapse, physical distance, substantive continuity)
- United States v. Willoughby, 653 F.3d 738 (8th Cir. 2011) (separateness does not turn on arrest or conviction timing)
- United States v. Daniels, 625 F.3d 529 (8th Cir. 2010) (short-interval burglaries at different locations/victims can be separate predicates)
- Wooden v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 1063 (2022) (same-night, same-location burglaries in one uninterrupted course of conduct were a single conviction for ACCA purposes)
- United States v. Harris, 794 F.3d 885 (8th Cir. 2019) (recidivism is not an element that must be proved to a jury)
- United States v. Evans, 738 F.3d 935 (8th Cir. 2014) (a judge may resolve whether prior felonies occurred on separate occasions)