Opinion ID: 524066
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Prior Burglaries as Crimes of Violence

Text: 12 The record reflects that prior to this offense, Flores had been convicted of six burglaries of private residences under the Former Texas Penal Code of 1925. 2 We must look to the definitions under the 1925 Code to determine whether these convictions are for crimes of violence under Sec. 4B1.1. The term crime of violence as used under Sec. 4B1.1 is defined under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 16. Sec. 4B1.2(1). 18 U.S.C. Sec. 16 provides: 13 The term crime of violence means-- 14 (a) an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, 3 or 15 (b) any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense. 16 Flores' argument focuses on subsection (b). He argues that burglary under the Texas Penal Code of 1925 is not by its nature a crime of violence because to be convicted of burglary under the 1925 Code, there did not have to be a substantial risk of force. Flores' argument however is too broad. We do not need to address whether all burglaries under the 1925 Code should be excluded from the classification of crimes of violence. 4 The district court had enough evidence before it to determine that Flores had been previously convicted of burglaries of private residences, and as such, that they clearly fit within the classification of offenses subsection Sec. 16(b) was designed to cover. 17
18 The actual convictions on their faces do not support a finding that the burglaries Flores was convicted of were ones of personal residences. The six prior convictions either state that he was convicted of burglary without any further explanation or that he was convicted of burglary as charged in the indictment. The convictions also do not specify the section of the Texas Penal Code under which he was convicted. Because of other evidence in the record, however, we are able to conclude that his prior convictions were for burglaries of residences. 19 First, the pre-sentence report specifies that the burglaries were of private residences. The employee from the probation office who prepared this report also testified at the sentencing hearing about how he obtained the information contained in the report. He obtained the specifics as to each conviction from the county clerks in the three counties in which the convictions occurred. He explained that he contacted the clerks after seeing that the convictions were not specific as to the type of burglary involved. Second, the employee also testified that in Flores' Texas Department of Corrections records, which are not a part of the record, there is an admission by Flores that his previous convictions were for burglaries of residences. 20 Flores' only objection to the admission of any of this evidence concerning his prior convictions was based on hearsay. The district court correctly relied on this information, however, even though it was hearsay because the pre-sentence report coupled with the employee's testimony was sufficiently reliable. Federal Rules of Evidence 1101(d)(3); United States v. Garcia, 693 F.2d 412, 416 (5th Cir.1982); United States v. Benton, 637 F.2d 1052, 1060 (5th Cir.1981). 21 Further, Flores had the burden of showing that this information upon which the district court relied in sentencing was materially untrue. United States v. Clements, 634 F.2d 183, 186 (5th Cir.1981). He has failed in this burden. He has not denied that the information used was accurate, only that it was not properly admissible. The court's reliance then on the pre-sentence report and the probation office employee's testimony was proper in concluding that the convictions were for burglaries of private residences. 22
23 Under Sec. 16(b), it is clear that burglary of a residence fits within the classification of offenses that Congress intended to include. The legislative history is reported as follows: 24 Offenses such as burglary in violation of a State law ... would be included in [16(b) ] inasmuch as such an offense would involve the substantial risk of physical force against another person or against the property. 25 S.Rep. No. 225, 98th Cong., 2d Sess. 307, reprinted in 1984 U.S.Cong. & Adm.News 3182, 3486. Any burglary might be covered under this language. But in any event burglary of a residence is. Whenever a private residence is broken into, there is always a substantial risk that force will be used. 26 Of critical importance is Application Note 1 of the Commentary to Sec. 4B1.2 of the Guidelines. It states that the Commission interprets crime of violence to include a conviction for burglary of a dwelling. The court then correctly determined that Flores had been convicted of at least two prior crimes of violence as was required to find Flores a career offender. 5 27