Erlinger v. United States
Issues
Does it violate a criminal defendant’s Fifth Amendment right to due process or Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury when a sentencing judge, rather than a jury, determines whether a defendant’s prior convictions were “committed on occasions different from one another,” as is necessary to impose an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act?
This case asks the Supreme Court to define the contours of a criminal defendant’s constitutional rights when subject to the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984’s (“ACCA”) occasions clause in light of the Court’s decision in Wooden v. United States. The ACCA authorizes enhancing a criminal defendant’s sentence when the defendant’s three prior convictions were committed “on occasions different from one another.” Under Wooden, that clause requires determining whether the previous offenses occurred on different occasions or, rather, arose “from a single criminal episode.” Paul Erlinger argues that the Fifth and Sixth Amendment prohibit a sentencing judge from making that determination, rather a jury must decide the factual questions necessary under the ACCA beyond a reasonable doubt. Nick Harper, court-appointed amicus curiae in support of the judgment below, counters that the Constitution does not require the occasions clause to be decided by a jury because history and Supreme Court precedent authorize legislatures to assign recidivism-related determinations to sentencing judges. The outcome of this case has implications for criminal defendants’ rights at sentencing.
Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties
Whether the Constitution requires a jury trial and proof beyond a reasonable doubt to find that a defendant’s prior convictions were “committed on occasions different from one another,” as is necessary to impose an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act.
Petitioner Paul Erlinger (“Erlinger”) pled guilty to being a felon in possession of firearms in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e) on April 20th, 2018.
Additional Resources
- The Occasions Clause Paradox, Harv. L. Rev. (December 12, 2022).
- Charles Doyle, Armed Career Criminal Act (18 U.S.C.§ 924(e)): An Overview, Congressional Research Service (August 11, 2022).
- John Kruzel, Supreme Court sides with defendant in Armed Career Criminal Act case, The Hill (March 7, 2022).