United States v. Miller
2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 4148, 478 F.3d 48, 2007 WL 572252 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant's silence during a plea colloquy, in response to a judge's factual characterization of the crime, can be considered an "adoptive admission" of those facts, thereby allowing a sentencing court to use them to determine if the prior conviction qualifies as a predicate offense under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA).
Facts:
- Gary W. Miller had a prior conviction for third-degree burglary under a Connecticut statute.
- The Connecticut statute defined burglary more broadly than the federal definition of generic burglary, as it included unlawful entry into structures other than buildings, such as vehicles and watercraft.
- During Miller's change-of-plea hearing for the Connecticut burglary, the state court judge characterized the crime as a "break-in at Trader Jack’s [involving] a safe."
- The state court judge also warned Miller to "[s]tay out of Trader Jack’s and all the other stores."
- Miller was present for the judge's statements, was given multiple opportunities to speak, and did not object to or otherwise correct the judge’s characterization of the facts.
Procedural Posture:
- Gary W. Miller pleaded guilty in federal district court to a single count of being a felon in possession of a handgun.
- During the sentencing hearing, the government argued for a sentence enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), which requires three prior violent felony convictions.
- Miller disputed that his 2000 Connecticut conviction for third-degree burglary qualified as the necessary third predicate violent felony.
- The U.S. District Court reviewed the transcript of the state court change-of-plea colloquy for the burglary conviction.
- The district court found that the burglary involved a building, satisfying the ACCA requirement, and sentenced Miller to a 180-month term of imprisonment.
- Miller, as the appellant, appealed his sentence to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
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 a defendant's silence during a plea colloquy, when a judge describes the factual basis for the plea, constitute an adoptive admission of those facts, thereby allowing a sentencing court to rely on that transcript to determine if a prior conviction qualifies as a predicate offense under the Armed Career Criminal Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Selya, Senior Circuit Judge
Yes, a defendant's silence can constitute an adoptive admission of facts stated during a plea colloquy, permitting a sentencing court to rely on that transcript for ACCA purposes. The court applied the evidentiary doctrine of "adoptive admissions," which allows a party's agreement with a statement to be inferred from silence. Because the state judge's characterization of the crime as a burglary of a store named "Trader Jack's" was made in Miller's presence and was the type of statement that would normally provoke a denial if untrue, Miller's failure to object constituted an adoption of those facts. The court found it was a reasonable inference that "Trader Jack's" was a store and therefore a building, satisfying the ACCA's definition of a violent felony. The court also summarily rejected Miller's constitutional claim, citing precedent that prior convictions used for sentencing enhancements need not be proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the use of the "adoptive admission" doctrine in the context of the Taylor/Shepard framework for analyzing prior convictions under the ACCA. It clarifies that a defendant need not explicitly affirm every fact stated in a plea colloquy; silence in the face of a direct factual assertion by a judge can be sufficient to establish assent. This ruling provides courts with a clearer path to determine the nature of a conviction from an ambiguous state statute by examining plea transcripts, making it potentially easier to apply ACCA sentencing enhancements. It reinforces that courts may use common-sense inferences when interpreting the record of conviction.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Miller