Opinion ID: 2633019
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Federal case law applying Almendarez-Torres post-Apprendi

Text: In United States v. Higgs, 353 F.3d 281, 296 (4th Cir.2003), cert, denied, 543 U.S. 999, 125 S.Ct. 627, 160 L.Ed.2d 456 (2004), the federal court noted that the purpose of the Indictment Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the federal constitution is to ensure that a defendant's jeopardy is limited `to offenses charged by a group of his fellow citizens acting independently of either prosecuting attorney or judge.' (Quoting Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 218, 80 S.Ct. 270, 4 L.Ed.2d 252 (1960).) Moreover, [i]n conjunction with the notice requirement of the Sixth Amendment,[ [3] ] the Indictment Clause provides two additional protections: the right of a defendant to be notified of the charges against him through a recitation of the elements, and the right to a description of the charges that is sufficiently detailed to allow the defendant to argue that future proceedings are precluded by a previous acquittal or conviction. See Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749, 763-64[, 82 S.Ct. 1038, 8 L.Ed.2d 240] (1962); see also Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 117[, 94 S.Ct. 2887, 41 L.Ed.2d 590] (1974) ([A]n indictment is sufficient if it, first, contains the elements of the offense charged and fairly informs a defendant of the charge against which he must defend, and, second, enables him to plead an acquittal or conviction in bar of future prosecutions for the same offense); United State v. Carrington, 301 F.3d 204, 209-10 (4th Cir.2002) (same). Id. (alterations added and in original). In Higgs, the defendant contended that his capital convictions and death sentences must be vacated because the indictment failed to charge [him] specifically with . . . the aggravating factors required under federal statute. Id. at 295. The prosecution alleged that, among other aggravating factors, his prior convictions need not be alleged in the indictment. Id. at 301-02. Based on Almendarez-Torres, the Fourth Circuit agreed with the prosecution and held that [t]he Fifth Amendment Indictment Clause does not require an indictment to allege prior convictions that expose a defendant to an enhanced penalty. Id. at 304. Other federal courts have held similarly. See, e.g., United States v. Mercedes, 287 F.3d 47, 58 (2d Cir.2002) (holding that pursuant to Almendarez-Torres, the district court committed no error by enhancing [the defendant's] sentence based on an uncharged prior conviction); United States v. Thomas, 242 F.3d 1028, 1035 (11th Cir.2001) ([W]e are bound to follow Almendarez-Torres unless and until the Supreme Court itself overrules that decision.); compare United States v. Rodriguez-Gonzalez, 358 F.3d 1156, 1158-60 (9th Cir.2004) (holding that because the existence of a prior conviction under a federal statute substantively transforms a second conviction under the statute from a misdemeanor to a felony[,] the statute changes the nature of the crime, and therefore  Almendarez-Torres does not apply).