Descamps v. United States

Facts

D was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U. S. C. §922(g). That unadorned offense carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison. P sought an enhanced sentence under ACCA, based on D's prior state convictions for burglary, robbery, and felony harassment. D argued that his prior burglary conviction could not count as an ACCA predicate offense under our categorical approach. D had pleaded guilty to a state statute that does not require the entry to have been unlawful in the way most burglary laws do. Burglary statutes generally demand breaking and entering or similar conduct, but California does not: It covers, for example, a shoplifter who enters a store, like any customer, during normal business hours. The court held that the modified categorical approach permitted it to examine certain documents, including the record of the plea colloquy, to discover whether D had “admitted the elements of a generic burglary” when entering his plea. The transcript showed that D had done so. At the plea hearing, the prosecutor proffered that the crime “‘involved the breaking and entering of a grocery store,’” and D failed to object to that statement. D's prior conviction qualified as a generic burglary (and so as a “violent felony”) under ACCA. The Court of Appeals affirmed, relying on its recently issued decision in United States v. Aguila-Montes de Oca, 655 F. 3d 915 (2011) (en banc) (per curiam). The en banc court held that when a sentencing court considers a conviction under §459-or any other statute that is “categorically broader than the generic offense”-the court may scrutinize certain documents to determine the factual basis of the conviction. The Court of Appeals found that D's plea, as revealed in the colloquy, “rested on facts that satisfy the elements of the generic definition of burglary.” D appealed.

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.