Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Sentencing Guidelines-Armed Career Criminal Act

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//August 14, 2023//

Sentencing Guidelines-Armed Career Criminal Act

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//August 14, 2023//

Listen to this article

7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: United States of America v. Paul Erlinger

Case No.: 22-1926

Officials: Hamilton, Jackson-Akiwumi, and Lee, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Sentencing Guidelines-Armed Career Criminal Act

Erlinger entered a guilty plea for the charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). He received an extended 15-year sentence due to the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e), which was triggered by his 1991 conviction for residential burglary in Illinois, 1991 conviction for burglary in Indiana, and two convictions for dealing in methamphetamine in Indiana in 2003. The court invalidated Erlinger’s sentence following a ruling by the Seventh Circuit, which determined that Illinois residential burglary does not qualify as a violent felony and Indiana methamphetamine convictions do not count as serious drug offenses under ACCA.

The prosecution contended that Erlinger still met the criteria for an ACCA enhancement by pointing to additional 1991 burglary convictions in Indiana. The prosecution presented plea and charging documents for each of these convictions, each involving a separate burglary at distinct businesses and occurring on different dates within a week. In contrast, Erlinger argued that Indiana’s definition of burglary is broader than the federal definition, therefore not triggering ACCA. He further claimed that the burglaries did not happen on distinct occasions as required by ACCA, asserting that a jury, not a judge, should determine this factual aspect.

Despite Erlinger’s arguments, the district court imposed an ACCA-enhanced 15-year sentence, a decision that was upheld by the Seventh Circuit. The Indiana statute, according to the court, does not employ language that the Supreme Court considers overly expansive. Furthermore, Erlinger failed to present any Indiana cases that interpret the statute in the manner he suggested. The prosecution was not obligated to demonstrate to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Erlinger committed the Indiana burglaries on separate occasions.

Affirmed.

Decided 08/10/23

Full Text

Polls

Should additional funding and resources be given to the Secret Service?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

Case Digests

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests