holding that a certified record of conviction satisfies the Government's burden and the defendant must then establish that the prior convictions occurred on one occasion
How later courts described this case
- holding that a certified record of conviction satisfies the Government's burden and the defendant must then establish that the prior convictions occurred on one occasion
- concluding that defendant who sequentially burglarized three separate businesses in the span of thirty minutes had committed three different offenses for purposes of the armed career criminal sentence enhancement
- noting that Taylor applies to the issue as to whether a prior offense constituted a "violent felony” under the ACCA, which is to be decided only by reference to the statutory definition of the crime, and not the particular facts underlying the conviction, whereas Taylor does not apply to the question whether multiple prior offenses occurred on more than one "occasion” under the ACCA, which frequently necessitates reference not only to the charging documents but to other evidence, such as police reports
- holding that each unlawful entry was a separate and distinct episode where defendants burglarized three adjacent businesses in a strip mall over the course of thirty minutes
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled — as noted by a later court
and permitting the consideration of police reports for the different occasion inquiry, 42 F.3d at 1019 n. 3, is no longer good law.
medium confidenceAbrogated on other grounds by Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005)
re “committed on occasions different from one another” under the ACCA turns on whether the defendant “could have chosen to end his criminal activity” between- the two. 3 F.3d at 35; see also United States v. Elliott, 703 F.3d 378, 383 (7th Cir.2012) (noting “a court’s inquiry as to the timing of the prior offenses ‘is simple: were the crimes simultaneous or were they sequential?’” (quoting United States v. Hudspeth,…
Abrogated on other grounds by United States v. James Elliott, 703 F.3d 378 (2012)
42 F.3d 1015, 1025 (7th Cir. 1994), abrogated on other grounds by United States v. Elliott, 703 F.3d 378, 388
The opinion
BAUER, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I concur. My concurrence is both simple and, as far as it goes, complete. I believe the defendant was appropriately sentenced because, in my opinion, the record shows three separate crimes against separate victims and not a single crime or criminal occasion (whatever that is).