Armed Career Criminal Act

Issues

Federal law prohibits convicted felons from possessing firearms, and the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”) mandates increased prison sentences for violators of this provision who have three or more prior “violent felony” convictions. Petitioner Larry Begay (“Begay”) had at least three prior convictions for felony driving while intoxicated (“DWI”) when he pled guilty to federal firearms possession charges. The trial court held that felony DWI is a “violent felony,” and therefore sentenced Begay to a lengthy prison term under the ACCA. In deciding Begay’s appeal from this sentence, the Court will consider whether the ACCA’s “violent felony” definition encompasses felony DWI. A decision favoring Begay would likely limit the scope of the definition to felonies similar to those specifically listed in the ACCA: burglary, arson, extortion, and crimes using explosives. On the other hand, a decision in favor of the United States would likely extend the reach of the definition to all dangerous felonies. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether a “violent felony” under the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984 includes crimes in which an individual used force recklessly. Petitioner Charles Borden asserts that the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit incorrectly held that committing a crime with a mens rea of recklessness constitutes a violent felony because the mental state of recklessness does not include the intention or knowledge that would satisfy the requirement of using force “against the person of another.” Respondent United States counters that a mens rea of recklessness satisfies the element because the focus is on the “use” of the physical force, which does not discern between mental states. The outcome of this case has important implications for criminal procedure, due process rights, and the necessary interpretation of the text of the ACCA.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

The Seventh Circuit in United States v. Chambers, 473 F.3d 724, 725 (7th Cir. 2007) held that failure to report to a penal institution constitutes a violent crime under the Armed Career Criminals Act. Petitioner Deondery Chambers pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced to 188 months in jail under the Armed Career Criminals Act because of his prior conviction for failing to report on schedule to a penal institution. Without the additional punishment mandated by the Armed Career Criminals Act, Chambers’ sentencing range would have been 130 to 162 months. The U.S. Supreme Court considers in this case whether or not a defendant’s failure to report for confinement involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another such that it constitutes a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminals Act.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether one can commit attempted murder without using, attempting to use, or threatening to use physical force against another person or their property. If no, attempted murder is a “crime of violence” and can serve as the basis for sentence enhancement under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c); if yes, it cannot—regardless of whether an individual defendant actually used physical force against another person. Salvatore Delligatti, who was convicted of attempted murder and seeks to challenge the enhancement of his sentence for that offense, argues that attempted murder does not inherently involve the action of using physical force because even completed murder can be committed through inaction. The United States counters that intentionally causing the death of another person, even through inaction, inherently involves the use of whatever physical force causes that other person’s death. The outcome of this case will determine the continued viability of Congress’s four-decade-old mechanism to crack down on gun violence, the Armed Career Criminal Act.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

Matthew Descamps was sentenced to 262 months in prison after the Ninth Circuit found that he had committed his third violent felony, in violation of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). The contested violent felony was a 1978 conviction for burglary of a California grocery store. Under the California burglary statute, one can be convicted of burglary without an explicit finding that entry into the burgled premises was itself unlawful.  The element of unlawful entry is required under the generic burglary statute described in the ACCA. The Ninth Circuit found the “unlawful entry” element to be necessarily satisfied by the plea bargain agreed to by Descamps, thus subjecting him to the mandatory fifteen-year minimum prison sentence required under the ACCA. How the Supreme Court decides this case will determine how sentencing courts use factual assertions surrounding a prior conviction in situations where a violent crime as defined under the ACCA contains elements absent from the crime for which the defendant was convicted.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

Alphonso James was convicted four times between 1997 and 2003: once for attempted burglary, twice for drug offenses, and the last time for illegal possession of a firearm. At the sentencing for his firearm offense the government argued that under the Armed Career Criminal Act a 15 year mandatory minimum sentence should be applied because James had three prior convictions for a violent felony and serious drug offenses. James is contesting the classification of attempted burglary as a violent felony, and the issue is now before the U.S. Supreme Court. The government argues that attempted burglary presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another person and thus fits one of the statutory definitions of a violent felony. James argues that determining whether his attempted burglary presented the specified risk would require the court to conduct impermissible fact-finding in opposition to the Court’s rulings in Taylor v. United States and Shepard v. United States. James also makes a statutory construction argument to support the exclusion of attempted burglary from the definition of a violent felony. Both the District Court for the Middle District of Florida and the Eleventh Circuit ruled that attempted burglary was a violent felony. If the Supreme Court upholds those rulings, more felons will be subject to this federal modified “three strikes” rule, thus adding fuel to the national debate about mandatory minimums and increasing prison populations.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

The Supreme Court will consider whether possession of a short-barreled shotgun can be considered a violent felony for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”). Johnson argues that possession alone of a short-barreled shotgun is not inherently violent, unlike the other violent felonies listed in the ACCA. The United States asserts that possession of a short-barreled shotgun is a violent felony because the possession of a dangerous weapon greatly increases the likelihood that a possessor will injure or kill others. The Court’s ruling implicates the law of sentencing enhancements, the classification of violent felonies, and the scope of the ACCA. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Issues

The Supreme Court will hear rearguments in this case to determine whether the “residual clause” in the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”) is unconstitutionally vague. The original issue on appeal urged the Court to consider whether possession of a short-barreled shotgun is a violent felony under the ACCA, but after oral arguments, the Court ordered a rehearing to determine whether the ACCA’s residual clause itself is unconstitutionally vague. The Petitioner, Samuel Johnson, argues that the residual clause is unconstitutionally vague and violates due process. In opposition, the Respondent, the United States, contends that the clause is not unconstitutionally vague and successfully provides direction to judges and citizens when determining how to conform their actions to the law. The outcome of this case may effect the role of judges in interpreting the residual clause of the ACCA, the uniformity of sentencing across different states, and the level of notice people have regarding whether a crime is a violent felony under the ACCA. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Written by

Edited by

Issues

James Logan, a citizen of Wisconsin with a prior felony drug conviction, was convicted of felony firearm possession after his girlfriend led the police to find a gun in his glove compartment. Under state law, Logan should have been sentenced to a maximum of ten years. The federal district court sentenced him to fifteen years. The United States claimed that Logan fell under the federal Armed Career Criminal Act ("ACCA"), which mandates an enhanced penalty for a gun-carrying felon who has three prior violent felony convictions. Logan had three prior misdemeanor battery convictions, all of which counted as "violent felonies" under the ACCA because they were each punishable by more than two years' imprisonment.

Logan's prior misdemeanor battery convictions did not result in the loss of his civil rights. Logan therefore argued that these convictions should not count under the ACCA, which exempts a prior conviction if that conviction has had "civil rights restored." The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, however, affirmed the district court's decision. Noting that there was no legislative history for the meaning of "restored," the appellate court interpreted "restored" to mean to give back something that had been taken away, and determined that rights that had never been lost could not be restored. Logan now appeals, arguing that "restored" should be interpreted broadly to avoid sentencing disparities and a result that Congress did not intend. At issue before the Supreme Court is whether convictions where rights were never taken away should be treated the same as convictions where rights were lost and then later regained. The Court's decision will resolve the current circuit split, as well as provide more insight into the continuing debate over mandatory sentencing schemes and the interpretation of federal sentencing laws.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources