The question
Whether the Fifth and Sixth Amendments require a jury, rather than a judge, to find beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant's prior offenses were committed on separate occasions before that finding can trigger the Armed Career Criminal Act's mandatory minimum sentence.
Erlinger v. United States
What the Court decided
The Court held that a judge may not decide whether a defendant's past offenses were committed on separate occasions for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act. Only a unanimous jury may make that determination, beyond a reasonable doubt, because it is a fact that increases the range of penalties a defendant faces. The Court reasoned that under Apprendi and its line of cases, any fact that raises the prescribed penalty range must be found by a jury, and deciding whether prior offenses occurred on different occasions is a fact-laden task. The judgment was reversed and the case remanded.
How the justices split
6-3The Court's opinion
Gorsuch, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett
The Fifth and Sixth Amendments place the jury at the center of criminal adjudication, and any fact that increases the range of penalties a defendant faces must be found by a unanimous jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Deciding whether prior offenses were committed on separate occasions under ACCA is a fact-laden task that raises the penalty range, so a judge may not make that finding. The determination must be made by a jury or freely admitted by the defendant.
Concurring
Roberts, writing alone
Roberts filed a concurring opinion. Its specific reasoning is not stated in the syllabus.
Concurring
Thomas, writing alone
Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Its specific reasoning is not stated in the syllabus.
Dissenting
Kavanaugh, joined by Alito, Jackson
Kavanaugh dissented, joined by Alito, and joined by Jackson except as to Part III. The dissent disagreed that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments require a jury to find that prior offenses were committed on separate occasions for ACCA purposes. The syllabus does not state the dissent's full reasoning.
Dissenting
Jackson, writing alone
Jackson filed a separate dissenting opinion. Its specific reasoning is not stated in the syllabus.
How we know · 5 sourced claims
The Court held that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments require a unanimous jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant's past offenses were committed on separate occasions for ACCA purposes.
Source: syllabus, Held
The Armed Career Criminal Act increases the penalty for a Section 922(g) conviction from a maximum of 10 years to a mandatory minimum of 15 years when the defendant has three or more qualifying convictions for offenses committed on different occasions.
Source: syllabus, Held
Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Barrett.
Source: syllabus, lineup
Kavanaugh filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Alito and joined by Jackson except as to Part III, and Jackson filed a separate dissenting opinion.
Source: syllabus, lineup
The Court relied on Apprendi v. New Jersey and related cases holding that only a jury may find facts that increase the prescribed range of penalties to which a defendant is exposed.
Source: syllabus, Held