Opinion ID: 166506
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Findings regarding prior convictions

Text: Mr. Johnson first argues that the existence of his prior convictions should only “be authorized by a jury verdict or a defendant’s admission.” Aplt’s Br. at 6. He primarily contends that Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1997) was wrongly decided, has been eroded by subsequent cases, and should be overruled. In Almendarez-Torres, the Supreme Court found no constitutional violation in a federal statute allowing a defendant’s sentence to be increased based on a fact not charged in the indictment: that the defendant had a prior aggravated felony conviction. Id. at 226-27. We acknowledge that Almendarez-Torres has been called into question. However, the Supreme Court has not overruled it. In Shepard v. United States, Justice Thomas noted in a concurring opinion that “Almendarez-Torres . . . has been eroded by this Court’s subsequent Sixth Amendment jurisprudence, and a majority of the Court now recognizes that Almendarez-Torres was wrongly -3- decided. The parties do not request it here, but in an appropriate case, this Court should consider Almendarez-Torres’ continuing viability.” 125 S. Ct. 1254, 1264 (2005) (citations omitted). “Although the Court may overrule Almendarez-Torres at some point in the future, it has not done so, we will not presume to do so for the Court, and we are bound by existing precedent to hold that the AlmendarezTorres exception to the rule announced in Apprendi [v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000)] and extended to the Guidelines in Booker remains good law.” United States v. Moore, 401 F.3d 1220, 1224 (10th Cir. 2005). Furthermore, in Booker, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the proposition that the fact of a prior conviction is an exception to factual jury submissions: [W]e reaffirm our holding in Apprendi: Any fact (other than a prior conviction) which is necessary to support a sentence exceeding the maximum authorized by the facts established by a plea of guilty or a jury verdict must be admitted by the defendant or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. 125 S.Ct. at 756 (emphasis added). Thus, the district court did not err when it relied on prior convictions to sentence Mr. Johnson as an armed career criminal.