This week, the Supreme Court delivered a unanimous opinion, authored by Justice Thomas. The Court answered the question of whether a federal sentencing court must determine whether "an offense under State law" is a "serious drug offense" under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) by consulting the "maximum term of imprisonment" applicable to a defendant's previous drug offense at the time of the defendant's state conviction for that offense even though the state has made that current sentencing law retroactive. The Court held that the "maximum term of imprisonment" for a defendant's prior state drug offense is the maximum sentence applicable to his offense when he was convicted of it.
The ACCA mandates a fifteen-year mandatory minimum prison sentence for anyone convicted under 18 U.S.C § 922(g)(1) and applies to a person who "violates section 922(g)" and "has three previous convictions . . . for a violent felony or a serious drug offense." 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(l). A "serious drug offense" is defined in relevant part as "an offense under State law . . . for which a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more is prescribed by law." § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii)
Police officers in Fayetteville, North Carolina apprehended petitioner-defendant McNeill, a felon, with crack cocaine packaged for distribution and in possession of a firearm. In sentencing McNeill for violating §922(g), the district court determined that he qualified for ACCA's sentencing enhancement based in part on six prior North Carolina drug trafficking convictions. When McNeill committed those crimes, each carried a 10-year maximum sentence, which McNeill received. However, because North Carolina later reduced the maximum sentence for those offenses to fewer than 10 years, McNeill argued that none of his six prior convictions were for "serious drug offenses" within the meaning of §924(e)(2)(A)(ii). The district court rejected McNeill's request that it look to current state law and instead relied on the 10-year maximum sentence that applied at the time that he committed his state offenses. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's classification of McNeill's North Carolina drug offenses as a "serious drug offenses" under ACCA, even though at the time of McNeill's federal sentencing, North Carolina's current sentencing law did not prescribe a maximum term of imprisonment of at least ten years for those state drug offenses. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
The Supreme Court looked at the plain text of ACCA to decide the issue of whether McNeill should have a reduced penalty due to North Carolina changing its drug-crime penalties. The Court held that a federal sentencing court must determine whether "an offense under State law" is a "serious drug offense" by consulting the "maximum term of imprisonment" applicable to a defendant's prior state drug offense to consult the law that applied at the time of that conviction of that offense. The Court determined that the ACCA's use of the present tense in defining a "serious drug offense" as, "an offense . . . for which a maximum [10-year] term . . . is prescribed by law" suggests the use of "the present tense to refer to past convictions."
Therefore, the Court concluded that a federal sentencing court must determine whether "an offense under State law" is a "serious drug offense" by consulting the "maximum term of imprisonment" applicable to a defendant's previous drug offense at the time of the defendant's state conviction for that offense. Thus, the Court affirmed the district court's decision to enhance McNeill's sentence in light of his two admitted violent felony convictions. The Court noted that McNeill needed only one conviction for a "serious drug offense" to trigger ACCA even though all six of his prior drug convictions qualify as serious drug offenses."
The case is McNeill v. U.S., No. 10-5258, dated June 6, 2011. To review the full decision, click here.
No comments:
Post a Comment