Opinion ID: 2796464
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Constitutional Conviction

Text: Porter argues for the first time on appeal the ACCA, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), violates the Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the United States Constitution, because it allows for the imposition of mandatory-minimum sentences, based upon alleged prior convictions not included in the indictment, admitted by the defendant, or proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Porter acknowledges the Supreme Court case of Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S. Ct. 1219 (1998), where the Court recognized that prior convictions need not be charged in an indictment or proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Nevertheless, he argues Almendarez-Torres is inconsistent with the more recent opinion in Alleyne v. United States, 564 U.S. ___, ___, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013), under which facts that 5 Case: 14-10223 Date Filed: 04/24/2015 Page: 6 of 7 increase the minimum penalty of an offense were held to be elements of the offense that must be decided by a jury. We normally review constitutional sentencing issues de novo; however, we review for plain error, where a defendant fails to raise an objection before the district judge at sentencing. United States v. Harris, 741 F.3d 1245, 1248 (11th Cir. 2014). The Supreme Court in Alleyne was careful to note that its holding did not disturb the rule in Almendarez-Torres that prior convictions need not be submitted to a jury. See Alleyne, 564 U.S. at ___, 133 S. Ct. at 2160 n.1. We additionally have held that it is constitutionally permissible for a district judge to enhance a defendant’s sentence and impose a mandatory-minimum sentence, based on prior convictions that were not found by the jury. See United States v. Smith, 775 F.3d 1262, 1266 (11th Cir. 2014) (“Alleyne did not overrule Almendarez-Torres, and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments do not limit the use of [the defendant’s] prior convictions.”); Harris, 741 F.3d at 1249. In Harris, we addressed the issue directly: As this discussion indicates, Alleyne did not address the specific question at issue in this case, which is whether a sentence can be increased because of prior convictions without a jury finding the fact of those convictions. That question continues to be governed by Almendarez–Torres . . . where the [Supreme] Court determined that the fact of a prior conviction is not an ‘element’ that must be found by a jury. Indeed, the Alleyne Court specifically recognized that, under Almendarez–Torres, prior convictions are excepted from the general rule that a jury 6 Case: 14-10223 Date Filed: 04/24/2015 Page: 7 of 7 must find any fact that will increase the penalty for an offense. Harris, 741 F.3d at 1249. Porter’s argument regarding this issue is foreclosed by Supreme Court and circuit precedent. He does not dispute on appeal the fact of his prior convictions or that they could have served as predicate felonies for an ACCA enhancement. Instead, he argues Almendarez-Torres is inconsistent with the Court’s more recent Alleyne decision, which is a misreading of Alleyne. In Alleyne, the Court explicitly stated its decision did not disturb the “narrow exception . . . for the fact of a prior conviction,” recognized in Almendarez-Torres to the “general rule” that “facts that increase the prescribed range of penalties to which a criminal defendant is exposed are elements of the crime” that must be proved to a jury. See Alleyne, 564 U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. at 2160 & n.1 (quotation omitted); see also Harris, 741 F.3d at 1249. Contrary to Porter’s argument, Alleyne and Almendarez-Torres are consistent. He has failed to show § 924(e) is unconstitutional by allowing a district judge to impose a mandatory-minimum sentence by relying on prior convictions he did not admit and the government did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt. See Smith, 775 F.3d at 1266. Therefore, we affirm his conviction and sentence. AFFIRMED. 7