Opinion ID: 686566
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Determining Whether a Conviction is for a Crime of Violence

Text: 19 Appellant asserts that the district court erred by looking behind his conviction when it found that the May 1980 conviction was for a crime of violence. Relying on Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 601-03, 110 S.Ct. 2143, 2160, 109 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990), United States v. Wright, 968 F.2d 1167, 1172 (11th Cir.1992), vacated on other grounds, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 2325, 124 L.Ed.2d 238 (1993), and Gonzalez-Lopez, 911 F.2d at 547, Appellant argues that the district court was obliged to take a categorical approach and look no farther than the judgment of conviction. The Government replies that those cases, decided under different enhancement statutes or prior versions of Sec. 4B1.2, are contrary to the plain text of the Guidelines and are not controlling. 20 Examination of the charging document is permitted under the Guidelines. U.S.S.G. Sec. 4B1.2, comment. (n. 2). But despite the Guidelines' approach, the ability to look behind state convictions in a federal sentencing proceeding is very limited. See, e.g. United States v. Roman, 989 F.2d 1117, 1120 (11th Cir.1993) (en banc), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 2139, 128 L.Ed.2d 868 (1994). As the Supreme Court explained in Taylor v. United States, the practical difficulties of holding mini-trials on a defendant's prior convictions counsel against looking beyond the fact of conviction. Taylor, 495 U.S. at 599-603, 110 S.Ct. at 2159-60 (1990). This reasoning applies with equal force to decisions under Secs. 4B1.1 and 4B1.2. See United States v. Oliver, 20 F.3d 415, 417 (11th Cir.1994). Thus, a district court only may inquire into the conduct surrounding a conviction if ambiguities in the judgment make the crime of violence determination impossible from the face of the judgment itself. Smith, 10 F.3d at 733. The inquiry is limited to examining easily produced and evaluated court documents, including the judgment of conviction, charging papers, plea agreement, presentence report adopted by the court, and the findings of a sentencing judge. Id. at 734. 21 While the Supreme Court's reasoning in Taylor--decided under a different enhancement provision--often will guide our decisions under Sec. 4B1.2, see Oliver, 20 F.3d at 417, United States v. Bell, 966 F.2d 703, 704-05 (1st Cir.1992), the Guidelines' commentary rejects its categorical approach. The Guidelines' commentary also precludes the categorical approach of Wright, 968 F.2d at 1172, and Gonzalez-Lopez, 911 F.2d at 547, which were decided under a previous version of the Guidelines. Consequently, we must reject Appellant's contention that a district court can never look behind a conviction in its Sec. 4B1.2 crime of violence inquiry. 22 In this case the ambiguity of the conviction and the statute under which Appellant was prosecuted required the court to look behind the judgment of conviction. Florida's burglary statute encompasses three different burglary situations; (1) where the offender is armed or commits assault or battery, he commits a felony of the first degree; (2) where the offender enters a dwelling or occupied building, he commits a felony of the second degree; and (3) in all other burglaries, the offender commits a felony of the third degree. Fla.Stat. Sec. 810.02(2), (3) (1994). The problem is that every burglary under the Florida statute, whether a first, second, or third degree felony, requires the entering or remaining in a structure. Fla.Stat. Sec. 810.02(1). Consequently, the judgment of conviction's language of guilt for burglary of a structure encompasses some conduct which constitutes a crime of violence and some which does not. In such circumstances, the district court correctly went beyond the face of the May 1980 conviction in determining whether it was for a crime of violence. 23 But the Guidelines stress that the conduct of which the defendant was convicted is the focus of the inquiry. U.S.S.G. Sec. 4B1.2, comment. (n. 2). Thus, a district court may not rely on a charging document without first establishing that the crime charged was the same crime for which the defendant was convicted. Here, the district court relied on conduct contained in the charging document without ever determining whether Appellant was convicted for the charged offense. 24 Appellant was charged with a second degree felony--burglary of a dwelling--and faced a term of imprisonment not exceeding 15 years. Fla.Stat. Sec. 775.082(3)(c). But he was convicted pursuant to a plea agreement, which might very well have been obtained for unaggravated burglary, a third degree felony, subjecting him to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 5 years. Fla.Stat. Sec. 775.082(3)(d). Appellant's four-year sentence of imprisonment, and the judgment's language convicting him for burglary of a structure makes us unable to determine from the face of the judgment whether Appellant was convicted as charged. 25 The fact that Appellant's conviction was obtained through a plea agreement heightens our concern that Appellant's sentence enhancement may rely upon a crime for which he was never convicted. In Taylor, the enhancement statute at issue made any burglary conviction the basis for an enhancement. Id., 495 U.S. at 588-90, 110 S.Ct. at 2153. The circuit court held that the sentencing court could look behind the defendant's plea and enhance the sentence because, regardless of the conviction, the original charge was for burglary. Id. 495 U.S. at 578, 110 S.Ct. at 2148. In reversing the circuit court, the Supreme Court noted that if a guilty plea to a lesser, nonburglary offense was the result of a plea bargain, it would seem unfair to impose a sentence enhancement as if the defendant had pleaded guilty to burglary. Id. 495 U.S. at 601-02, 110 S.Ct. at 2160. 26 We hold that the district court erred by relying on the charging document without determining whether Appellant pled guilty to the crimes charged. On remand, the district court should examine Appellant's 1980 plea. If Appellant's plea was for a second degree felony, admits guilt as charged, or in some other way indicates a plea to the conduct charged in the indictment, then a career offender sentence enhancement is appropriate. But if the plea was for a third degree felony, or contains some other indication that Appellant pled to an unaggravated burglary, then the May 1980 conviction cannot be the basis for finding Appellant to be a career offender under the Guidelines.