According to Morristown criminal defense lawyers, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has made an important ruling with widespread criminal defense implications. SCOTUS decided that juries and not judges must decide whether a person deserves an enhanced sentence. This is relevant to recidivism laws, such as the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA).
A sentencing enhancement allows a judge to impose penalties beyond what the law usually supports for a particular crime. Three strikes laws are a common example. Also known as habitual offender and recidivist laws, they allow harsher penalties because a person is a repeat offender.
The ACCA became effective in 1994. Since its enactment, it has been a controversial law that allows for severe penalties for habitual offenders convicted of unlawful firearm possession. The purpose of the law is to deter so-called “career criminals” and, in particular, those who specialize in violent crimes and serious drug offenses. The law outlines criteria for sentence enhancement and the penalties allowed. As an example, if a person had three prior drug offenses and was convicted of illegally possessing a firearm, the judge could impose an additional 15 years in prison on top of the base sentence.
Wooden v. United States is a SCOTUS case from 2022. The decision is relevant to this 2024 ruling because it involves the ACCA as well. A judge had applied the enhanced sentence to William Dale Wooden based on 10 burglary offenses. SCOTUS found this an unfair sentence because those offenses occurred on a single occasion.
In the case that led to this decision, a judge sentenced Paul Erlinger to 15 years for burglaries he committed as an 18-year-old. He possessed a firearm during these crimes, and so the judge gave him an enhanced sentence as allowed by the ACCA. Erlinger argued that he did not qualify for an enhanced sentence because the burglaries did not occur on different occasions as with the Wooden case. The Seventh Circuit rejected this argument, but the Supreme Court appeal was unopposed.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Erlinger in a 6-3 majority ruling, which is an unusual split considering the makeup of the majority and the dissent. It decided that judges should not make this decision but instead leave it up to a jury. This was something that Erlinger’s lawyer, Jeffrey Fisher, had requested during the initial trial. Fisher says that he had made that argument successfully several times before, but that this judge would not allow it. In making the decision, Justice Neil Gorsuch noted Apprendi v. New Jersey. In that case, the justices held that a jury could find the facts that would impose harsher penalties. It is important to note that SCOTUS did not necessarily disagree with the application of the ACCA in the Erlinger case. It noted that Erlinger might not prevail in the lower courts.
The dissenters based their opinion on Almendarez-Torres v. United States. In that case, the justices ruled that either a judge or a jury could decide a sentence enhancement. In other words, they would leave it up to the judge. Part of the logic here is that it could expose the jury to information that would bias their core decision.
In the future, juries in federal cases will determine whether there is evidence to support an enhanced sentence. Whether this affects state criminal cases remains to be seen.
If you have been charged with a crime, it is imperative to have legal representation to ensure your rights are protected. Gregg A. Wisotsky is a Morristown criminal defense lawyer with significant of experience representing clients. To set up your consultation, contact us online. You can also call our Morristown office at 973-898-0161 during normal business hours or at 908-229-9714 after hours and on weekends.