The US Supreme Court granted certiorari to hear United States v. Erlinger on Monday to decide if the US Constitution places a requirement under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) for “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.’”
United States v. Erlinger concerns the US Constitution and Section 924(e) of the ACCA. The ACCA prohibits the purchase and possession of firearms by felons, fugitives, drug addicts, undocumented immigrants, dishonorably discharged members of the Armed Forces, those under domestic violence restraining orders, and others. The law most often applies to felons possessing a firearm with three qualifying prior convictions, such as violent felonies or serious drug offenses, and the law often operates on those charged with violations of state law.
Section 922(g) of the ACCA mandates a 15-year minimum sentence for the unlawful possession of a firearm if the defendant has three prior convictions “committed on occasions different from one another.” Supreme Court precedent in Alleyne v. United States regarding the Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the US Constitution has held “any fact that increases the mandatory minimum is an ‘element’ that must be submitted to the jury and found beyond a reasonable doubt” with a “narrow exception for the fact of a prior conviction.”
Petitioner Paul Erlinger pleaded guilty to four counts of burglary in 1991. In 2017, Erlinger was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of the ACCA. Erlinger pleaded guilty to the 2017 charges and was sentenced to 180 days. Erlinger moved to vacate (or cancel) his sentence because the offenses he was charged under “no longer qualified as ACCA predicates under intervening circuit law.”
Because prior convictions increase the mandatory minimum sentence under the ACCA, the issue in this case is whether prior convictions “committed on occasions different from one another” are questions for a jury, or whether a fact-finding judge can determine the question. Federal appellate courts are split on the issue. Erlinger argues that his sentence was “unjust and artificially inflated.”
