Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-01162/USCOURTS-ca8-03-01162-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Junior C. Menteer
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-1162

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Western District of Missouri.

*

Junior C. Menteer, * [TO BE PUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: September 9, 2003

Filed: May 17, 2005

___________

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, BEAM, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

This case is before us on remand from the United States Supreme Court for

further consideration because of its recent decision in Shepard v. United States, 125

S. Ct. 1254 (2005). Shepard held a sentencing court cannot consider police reports

to determine whether a plea of guilty to a "non-generic" burglary statute qualifies as

a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e),

but is limited to considering "the terms of the charging document, the terms of a plea

agreement or transcript of colloquy between judge and defendant in which the factual

basis for the plea was confirmed by the defendant, or to some comparable judicial

record of this information." 125 S. Ct. at 1263.

Appellate Case: 03-1162 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/17/2005 Entry ID: 1903557
-2-

In this case, we affirmed the district court's determination Junior Menteer was

an armed career criminal based on admitted facts set forth in the presentence report

(PSR) which established Menteer's guilty plea to a non-generic burglary statute

satisfied the generic definition of burglary. United States v. Menteer, 350 F.3d 767,

771-72 (8th Cir. 2003). Specifically, the PSR stated "Menteer forcibly entered a

residence, armed with a deadly weapon, with the intent of robbing the victim." Id. at

771. We held "Menteer's failure to object to that portion of the PSR constitutes an

admission of those facts." Id. (citing United States v. Moser, 168 f.3d 1130, 1132

(8th Cir. 1999)).

The concern in Shepard was the Sixth Amendment implication of having a

sentencing judge "make a disputed finding of fact about what the defendant . . . must

have understood as the factual basis for the prior plea." Shepard, 125 S. Ct. at 1262.

This concern is not implicated when the "certainty of a generic finding lies in . . . the

defendant's own admissions or accepted findings of fact confirming the factual basis

for a valid plea." Id.

Since the ACCA determination in Menteer's case was based on his own

admissions, we conclude our earlier resolution of this issue is unaffected by Shepard.

Thus, we reinstate our prior opinion and again affirm Menteer's judgment of

conviction and sentence in all respects.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-1162 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/17/2005 Entry ID: 1903557