Lexplug logoLexplug

Shepard v. United States

Supreme Court of United States
544 U.S. 13 (2005)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

When determining whether a defendant's prior guilty plea to an offense under a non-generic statute qualifies as a predicate offense for sentence enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), a sentencing court's inquiry is limited to the statutory definition, charging document, written plea agreement, transcript of plea colloquy, and any explicit factual finding by the trial judge to which the defendant assented.


Facts:

  • Reginald Shepard had several prior convictions in Massachusetts for burglary which resulted from guilty pleas.
  • The Massachusetts burglary statute under which Shepard was convicted was 'non-generic,' meaning it criminalized unlawful entry into not only a 'building' but also a 'ship, vessel or vehicle'.
  • The federal Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) enhances sentences for felons with three prior 'violent felony' convictions, and defines burglary as a violent felony only if it is 'generic' burglary—the unlawful entry into a 'building or structure'.
  • Shepard was subsequently charged federally with being a felon in possession of a firearm.
  • The charging documents for Shepard's prior state burglary convictions tracked the broad statutory language and did not specify whether he had burglarized a building, ship, vessel, or vehicle.
  • The official court records for Shepard's prior guilty pleas did not contain written plea agreements or transcripts of plea colloquies that specified the factual basis for his pleas.
  • Police reports and complaint applications associated with Shepard’s prior convictions contained factual details suggesting that the burglaries involved breaking into buildings.

Procedural Posture:

  • The United States charged Reginald Shepard in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts with being a felon in possession of a firearm.
  • Shepard pleaded guilty to the federal charge.
  • At sentencing, the government moved for an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), based on Shepard's prior Massachusetts burglary convictions.
  • The District Court refused to apply the ACCA enhancement, ruling that under Taylor v. United States, it could not examine police reports to determine if the prior convictions were for 'generic' burglary.
  • The government, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which vacated the sentence and remanded, holding that the District Court could consult reliable documents like police reports.
  • On remand, the District Court again declined to impose the ACCA sentence, finding the government had not met its evidentiary burden.
  • The government appealed to the First Circuit a second time. The appellate court again vacated the sentence and remanded with instructions to impose the 15-year mandatory minimum sentence.
  • Shepard, as petitioner, filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, which the U.S. Supreme Court granted.

Locked

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 the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) permit a sentencing court to look to police reports or complaint applications to determine whether a prior guilty plea to a burglary offense under a non-generic statute qualifies as a 'violent felony' for sentence enhancement purposes?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice Souter

No. The Armed Career Criminal Act does not permit a sentencing court to look beyond a limited class of judicial records to determine the character of a prior conviction based on a guilty plea. To determine whether a plea under a non-generic burglary statute admitted the elements of a generic offense, a later court is limited to the terms of the charging document, the terms of a plea agreement or transcript of colloquy in which the defendant confirmed the factual basis for the plea, or to some comparable judicial record of this information. The Court's prior holding in Taylor v. United States established a 'categorical approach' to avoid the practical difficulties and potential unfairness of conducting collateral evidentiary inquiries into past convictions. Expanding the scope of permissible evidence to include police reports would undermine Taylor, as the same arguments for their reliability could be made for evidence in jury trial cases, which Taylor forbids. Furthermore, allowing a judge to make disputed factual findings based on such documents raises serious Sixth Amendment concerns under Apprendi v. New Jersey, as it involves judicial fact-finding that increases a sentence's mandatory minimum.


Dissenting - Justice O'Connor

Yes. A sentencing court should be permitted to examine reliable and uncontradicted evidence from the prior conviction's record, including police reports and complaint applications, to determine if a guilty plea was for generic burglary. The majority's rule is overly formalistic, frustrates Congress's intent to punish repeat violent offenders, and leads to an absurd result where known facts are ignored. Shepard has never actually denied that his prior crimes were burglaries of buildings. The Court's reliance on Sixth Amendment concerns is misplaced, as the Court's Apprendi jurisprudence has consistently excluded the fact of a prior conviction from the requirement of jury findings. Consulting these documents is a commonsense approach that does not conflict with the spirit of Taylor, which sought to avoid mini-trials with conflicting witnesses, not the review of a small, undisputed documentary record.


Concurring - Justice Thomas

No. While I agree with the Court's judgment and its refusal to broaden the scope of evidence, I write separately because the judicial fact-finding at issue does not merely raise constitutional 'doubt,' it creates constitutional 'error.' Under Apprendi v. New Jersey, any fact other than a prior conviction that increases a sentence beyond the statutory maximum must be found by a jury. The Court’s prior decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, which created an exception for facts about prior convictions, was wrongly decided. Therefore, any judicial fact-finding to determine the nature of a prior offense, whether based on a narrow set of documents as the majority allows or a broader set as the dissent prefers, is unconstitutional. The majority's rule is correct only because it limits an unconstitutional practice, and I cannot join Part III of the opinion which frames the issue as one of constitutional avoidance rather than constitutional error.



Analysis:

This case significantly clarifies the 'categorical approach' established in Taylor v. United States by extending its logic to convictions resulting from guilty pleas. It strictly limits the sources a sentencing court can consult to determine the nature of a prior offense, solidifying the distinction between conclusive judicial records (like a plea colloquy) and non-adjudicated evidence (like police reports). The decision reinforces the finality of prior convictions and prevents sentencing hearings from becoming 'mini-trials' over historical facts. By invoking Sixth Amendment concerns under Apprendi, the analysis also signals the Court's growing skepticism of any judicial fact-finding that increases punishment, thereby protecting defendants' jury trial rights in the sentencing context.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Shepard v. United States (2005)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"