Definition of Arson-Certified Question for Indiana Supreme Court

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: United States of America v. Sergio Gamez

Case No.: 22-2278

Officials: Cudder, St. Eve, and Lee, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Definition of Arson-Certified Question for Indiana Supreme Court

Following a 911 call from a gas station, law enforcement arrived to find Gamez, who was on probation due to a previous robbery conviction, in possession of a Winchester rifle. A mere eight days earlier, Gamez had managed to remove his GPS-tracking ankle bracelet, resulting in charges of escape filed by a LaPorte County Community Corrections officer. Gamez entered a guilty plea on the charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm, as outlined in 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1).

In pursuit of sentencing, the government aimed to apply the minimum 15-year term mandated by the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e), which pertains to section 922(g)(1) offenders possessing three previous convictions classified as “violent felonies.” Gamez possessed three prior Indiana state convictions: two for robbery (in 2009 and 2016) and one for aiding and abetting arson (in 2011). While Gamez did not dispute the characterization of his robbery convictions as violent felonies, he contended that Indiana’s arson statute encompassed a broader range of behaviors than what should be deemed a “violent felony.” Nonetheless, the district court ruled in favor of imposing the sentencing enhancement.

The Seventh Circuit seeks clarification from the Indiana Supreme Court on whether Indiana’s definition of arson necessitates an element of fire or burning. While the state’s criminal code does not explicitly mandate fire or burning as a component of arson, indications have arisen that Indiana state courts have interpreted and applied the statute to require proof of burning in order to sustain an arson conviction. Notably, the Indiana Supreme Court had yet to address this specific issue. It’s worth noting that the choice of the state to charge Gamez as an accomplice in the arson, rather than a principal, does not independently negate the possibility of applying the ACCA enhancement.

Question certified, proceedings stayed.

Decided 08/09/23

Full Text