Man seeks reversal of enhanced armed career criminal conviction

Update:

• The United States Supreme Court ruled a jury must hear evidence related to a defendant’s prior convictions and will then determine if those prior convictions qualify a defendant for a mandatory minimum sentence.
• The ruling overturned district and appeals courts’ rulings that allowed a judge to determine if prior convictions applied as separate offenses under the Armed Career Criminal Act.
• The ruling pertains to the case of Paul Erlinger of Indiana, who argued his four burglary convictions from 1991 were part of one crime because he pled guilty to them collectively. A lower court judge ruled they were separate crimes that would lead him to receive a 15-year minimum penalty.

Supreme Court enhanced sentencing overview: 

• Who: The Supreme Court has agreed to grant a petition for review filed by Paul Erlinger. 
• Why: Erlinger is asking the high court to clarify that jurors are constitutionally required to face inquiries relevant to the determination of whether a criminal defendant qualifies for an enhanced mandatory minimum sentence. 
• Where: The case is before the Supreme Court of the United States.

(Nov. 29, 2023)

The Supreme Court has agreed to review a decision on whether a jury or judge should be the ones to determine if prior convictions would qualify a defendant in a criminal trial for enhanced sentencing under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA).  

The high court’s announcement comes after a defendant from Indiana was given a 15-year prison sentence and the U.S. Department of Justice agreed that the determination should be up to jurors, Law360 reports. 

The man, Paul Erlinger, reportedly petitioned the Supreme Court in October to clarify that jurors are constitutionally required to face fact-intensive inquiries to determine whether a defendant in a criminal case qualifies for an enhanced mandatory minimum sentence. 

Erlinger claims a criminal defendant qualifies for an enhanced mandatory minimum sentence if they are found to have committed a total of three prior offenses on different occasions, and that jurors should be given facts to make that determination, according to Law360. 

Circuit courts say judges can determine whether prior convictions occurred on different occasions

Erlinger and the federal government are reportedly in agreement that a prior Supreme Court decision in March 2022 found prior convictions for a criminal defendant must have occurred on different occasions for them to be subject to a 15-year mandatory minimum sentence under the ACCA. 

The ruling came in the case Wooden v. United States, which found any criminal offenses that occurred during a single event would not count as different occasions, according to Law360. 

Since that decision, however, Erlinger and the federal government reportedly argue each of the 10 circuit courts have found judges can make a determination on whether a criminal defendant’s prior convictions occurred on different occasions. 

“Through both their actions and their words, the courts of appeals have made the need for this court’s review apparent,” the federal government said, as reported by Law360. 

Also this month, the Supreme Court released a code of conduct for the first time in its 234-year history after ethical issues regarding the conduct of some of the justices were raised. 

What are your thoughts on the Supreme Court’s decision to review the case? Let us know in the comments.

The Supreme Court enhanced sentencing case is Erlinger v. United States, Case No. 23-370, in the Supreme Court of the United States. 

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

• FDA allows Florida to import drugs from Canada
• Biden admin files lawsuit against Texas over new immigration law
• 22 states raise minimum wage
• IRS updates rules for EV tax credits in 2024