Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02626/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02626-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joe Daniel Robinson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-2626

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Joe Daniel Robinson, * [Not To Be Published]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 9, 2004

Filed: April 22, 2004 

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and COLLOTON, Circuit

Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Joe Daniel Robinson pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). After finding that Robinson had three prior

violent felony convictions, the district court1

 sentenced him under the Armed Career

Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), imposing a term of imprisonment greater

than the statutory maximum allowed for a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).

Appellate Case: 03-2626 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/22/2004 Entry ID: 1759591 
-2-

Robinson appeals, arguing that the ACCA does not apply because one of the

convictions considered by the district court was actually a juvenile adjudication. He

contends therefore that the sentence imposed by the district court violates due

process. See Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000) (holding that other

than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime

beyond the statutory maximum must be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt).

Whether a juvenile adjudication qualifies as a prior conviction under Apprendi is a

question that we answered in the affirmative in United States v. Smalley, 294 F.3d

1030 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1114 (2003) (holding that a juvenile

adjudication is a prior conviction for Apprendi purposes). Accordingly, the sentence

is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-2626 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/22/2004 Entry ID: 1759591