Opinion ID: 2999378
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Findings as to Criminal History

Text: Stevens’s sentence of 240 months’ imprisonment exceeded the otherwise applicable statutory maximum of 120 months. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2). Stevens faced a higher sentence because of the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (the “Act”). The Act provides that a defendant who is found to be a felon in possession “and has three previous convictions . . . for a violent felony . . . committed on occasions different from one another . . . shall be . . . imprisoned not less than fifteen years.” The district judge made a factual finding that Stevens had three previous No. 05-3953 7 qualifying felonies.2 Stevens argues his Sixth Amendment rights were violated because the three convictions were not presented to a grand jury for indictment or submitted to the jury for fact-finding as an element of the offense in the instant case. Stevens properly concedes the law is clearly against him. In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), the Supreme Court “held that the existence of a prior conviction need not be alleged in the indictment or proven to a jury as an element of the offense, but rather may be determined by the judge at sentencing, even if the prior conviction increases the statutory maximum sentence that may be imposed on the defendant.” United States v. Williams, 410 F.3d 397, 401 (7th Cir. 2005) (citing Almendarez-Torres). As we have noted, Almendarez-Torres remains intact, notwithstanding the subsequent decisions in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), and United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). See id. at 402; see also Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 24-26, 37-38 (2005) (acknowledging the continuing validity of Almendarez-Torres) (plurality and dissenting opinions). In light of the current status of the law, Stevens’s claim must fail. Unless or until the Supreme Court overrules Almendarez-Torres, “the district court does not violate a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial by making findings as to his criminal record that expose him to greater criminal penalties.” Williams, 410 F.3d at 402 (citations omitted). Stevens makes clear that his real intent is to preserve his right to seek review of this issue by the Supreme Court. We note Stevens timely raised the issue both before us and the district court, and his counsel admirably presented to us his argument on the subject. 2 Stevens does not dispute he has three prior violent felony convictions. 8 No. 05-3953