By: Derek Hawkins//June 28, 2016//
US Supreme Court
Case Name: Mathis v. United States
Case No.: 15-6092
Focus: Sentence Enhancement
Because the elements of Iowa’s burglary law are broader than those of generic burglary, Mathis’s prior convictions cannot give rise to ACCA’s sentence enhancement
“This case is resolved by this Court’s precedents, which have repeatedly held, and in no uncertain terms, that a state crime cannot qualify as an ACCA predicate if its elements are broader than those of a listed generic offense. See, e.g., Taylor, 495 U. S., at 602. The “underlying brute facts or means” by which the defendant commits his crime, Richardson v. United States, 526 U. S. 813, 817, make no difference; even if the defendant’s conduct, in fact, fits within the definition of the generic offense, the mismatch of elements saves him from an ACCA sentence. ACCA requires a sentencing judge to look only to “the elements of the [offense], not to the facts of [the] defendant’s conduct.” Taylor, 495 U. S., at 601.”
Reversed
CONCURRING: KENNEDY, THOMAS
DISSENTING: BREYER, GINSBURG, ALITO