Erlinger v. United States

Background

Paul Erlinger pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and faced a normal maximum sentence of 10 years. Prosecutors sought an enhanced mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) by relying on prior convictions that the judge found were committed on different occasions. After two earlier predicate convictions were later rejected, prosecutors relied at resentencing on decades-old burglary convictions; the district judge again found the offenses occurred on separate occasions and imposed ACCA’s 15-year minimum while denying Erlinger’s request for a jury determination.

Reasoning

The core question was whether the Fifth and Sixth Amendments require a unanimous jury to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that past offenses were committed on separate occasions before ACCA’s mandatory minimum can apply. The Court said yes, relying on earlier decisions that any fact increasing punishment must be proved to a jury (Apprendi and Alleyne) and on Wooden’s description of the occasions inquiry as intensely factual. The Court rejected the argument that Almendarez-Torres lets judges make all recidivism-related findings and explained that court records (Shepard documents) cannot reliably replace jury factfinding for this question.

Real world impact

The decision means defendants facing ACCA enhancements cannot generally have judges decide the separate-occasions question by a lower standard of proof. Lower courts will need to adjust sentencing practice, often using jury trials or bifurcated proceedings to resolve the occasions inquiry, and prosecutors may present older records or live testimony at those proceedings.

Dissents or concurrances

Some Justices concurred in the result but urged reconsideration of Almendarez-Torres, while dissenting Justices argued judges can make recidivism findings and that any error here was harmless in this case.