Opinion ID: 509334
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: alleged error in proving only one of the prior convictions before the jury

Text: 21 The indictment charged in the possession counts, including Count 7, that Karlin had three felony convictions for burglary. The three enumerated were an April 4, 1966 conviction in Manitowoc County, an October 11, 1968 conviction in Manitowoc County, and an August 1, 1978 conviction in Dodge County, all in Wisconsin. 22 Before trial, counsel for the parties stipulated to the 1978 conviction, and that the evidence of other convictions would not be read to the jury. They further stipulated that the fact of three prior burglary convictions is not an element of the offense, but rather a basis for enhanced sentencing of defendant if convicted. Karlin had previously filed a notice that he reserved certain rights including personal objection to all stipulations by counsel. We have found no objection by him to the stipulation just referred to. 23 Karlin argues on appeal that the three felony burglary convictions are an element of a distinct Sec. 1202(a)(1) offense, which must be proved to the jury, and do not merely serve to enhance the sentence. 24 Although there is conflict between the circuits on this point, 4 this court has held, since oral argument in this case, that although one previous felony conviction is an element of the offense, additional [robbery or burglary] convictions were relevant only for sentencing; admission at trial of evidence of multiple convictions not only would be unnecessary but also would be prejudicial. United States v. Pirovolos, 844 F.2d 415, 420 (7th Cir.1988).