ILNews

Judges uphold finding that past burglaries were not single criminal episode

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a defendant’s argument that his three previous convictions of burglary should be treated as a single criminal episode for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act.

James Elliott was arrested after police found a loaded gun on him, which is illegal because he has six previous felony convictions. He was indicted on a felon-in-possession charge and the government sought to enhance his sentence under the ACCA based on three burglary convictions. Elliott maintained that the burglaries – which took place over the course of five days – should be considered a single criminal episode and that a jury should decide whether the burglaries were committed on different occasions from one another.

The District Court rejected both of Elliott’s claims, pointing to Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S. Ct. 1219 (1998), as to the court’s authority to make determinations regarding Elliott’s criminal history. Chief Judge Philip Simon also cited the 7th Circuit’s en banc decision in U.S. v. Hudspeth, 42 F.3d 1015, 1019-22 (7th Cir. 1994). In Hudspeth, there is a bright-line rule distinguishing simultaneous crimes from sequential ones. Simon sentenced Elliott to 180 months.

In United States of America v. James Elliott, 11-2766, the appellate judges affirmed the District Court, noting that the 7th Circuit and other courts have construed Almendarez-Torres to allow a District Court to make a finding for purposes of the ACCA as to whether a defendant committed three or more violent felonies or serious drug offenses on different occasions.

“The district court committed no error in finding that Elliott’s burglaries occurred on different occasions for purposes of the ACCA. The burglaries occurred on different days and involved different residences and victims. Under any plausible construction of the statute’s different-occasions language, the burglaries constituted distinct criminal episodes,” Judge Ilana Diamond Rovner wrote. “Reconsideration of the approach that this court adopted in Hudspeth would not lead to a different result on the facts of this case. To the extent that the statute produces results that are perceived as unjust, the problem is one for Congress to fix rather than this court.”

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT