Alphonso James, Jr. v. United States
127 S. Ct. 1586 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The crime of attempted burglary, as defined by a state law requiring an overt act directed toward the entry of a structure, qualifies as a 'violent felony' under the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) because it involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another, comparable to the risk of completed burglary.
Facts:
- Alphonso James had a prior conviction in Florida state court for attempted burglary of a dwelling.
- At the time of James's conviction, Florida law defined burglary as entering or remaining in a structure with the intent to commit an offense therein.
- Florida's criminal attempt statute required an act toward the commission of the offense, but failure in the perpetration.
- The Florida Supreme Court had interpreted its attempt statute in the context of burglary to require an 'overt act directed toward entering or remaining in a structure,' not merely preparatory conduct.
- Subsequent to this conviction, James possessed a firearm.
- James also had two other prior felony convictions for serious drug offenses.
Procedural Posture:
- Alphonso James pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court (trial court) to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm.
- At sentencing, the Government argued for a 15-year mandatory minimum sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA).
- James objected, arguing his prior Florida conviction for attempted burglary was not a 'violent felony' under ACCA.
- The District Court overruled James's objection, found the conviction was a violent felony, and imposed the enhanced sentence.
- James appealed the sentence to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court) affirmed the District Court's decision.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the issue.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does attempted burglary under Florida law, which requires an overt act directed toward entering a structure, qualify as a 'violent felony' under the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii)?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Alito
Yes, attempted burglary under Florida law qualifies as a 'violent felony' under the ACCA's residual clause. The court applies a categorical approach, analyzing whether the elements of the offense, in the ordinary case, involve conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another. The risk posed by attempted burglary is comparable to that of its closest enumerated analog, completed burglary. The primary risk of burglary is not the entry itself but the potential for a violent face-to-face confrontation with an occupant, police officer, or bystander. This risk is equally, if not more, present during an attempt, as the perpetrator is often making noise and is exposed, and the attempt is frequently thwarted by just such a confrontation. Crucially, Florida law requires an 'overt act directed toward entering,' which goes beyond mere preparation and creates the immediate potential for a dangerous encounter. The text and history of ACCA do not categorically exclude attempt offenses from the residual clause.
Dissenting - Justice Scalia
No, attempted burglary does not qualify as a 'violent felony'. The majority's 'ad hoc' approach of comparing the offense to its 'closest analog' provides no concrete guidance for lower courts and renders the statute impermissibly vague. A better approach is to require that an unenumerated offense pose a risk at least as great as the least risky of the four enumerated offenses—burglary. Attempted burglary is categorically less risky than completed burglary because the latter involves an actual invasion into a confined space where the likelihood and danger of a violent confrontation with an occupant are significantly higher. The risk of a confrontation during an attempt, while the perpetrator is still outside, is much lower and less likely to result in violence.
Dissenting - Justice Thomas
No, the petitioner's sentence is unconstitutional regardless of the statutory interpretation. The process of enhancing a sentence under ACCA violates the Sixth Amendment principles established in Apprendi v. New Jersey. A judge, rather than a jury, made a factual finding—that James's prior conviction for attempted burglary qualified as a 'violent felony'—which increased his sentence beyond the statutory maximum for the underlying offense of being a felon in possession of a firearm. This judicial factfinding is unconstitutional; any fact that increases the mandatory sentence must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the scope of the ACCA's residual clause, establishing that inchoate crimes like 'attempt' can qualify as violent felonies. It solidifies a comparative risk framework, instructing lower courts to analyze unenumerated offenses by assessing whether their elements, in the ordinary case, pose a risk of injury comparable to the enumerated offenses. The ruling expanded the reach of ACCA, making it easier for prosecutors to obtain mandatory minimum sentences for defendants whose criminal histories include attempted property crimes, provided the state's definition of attempt requires a substantial step toward completion and not just mere preparation. This holding would later be effectively abrogated by the Court's decision in Johnson v. United States (2015), which found the ACCA's residual clause to be unconstitutionally vague.
Unlock the full brief for Alphonso James, Jr. v. United States