Opinion ID: 701778
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Sentencing as an Armed Career Criminal

Text: 12 The district court found that King had three prior convictions for violent felonies; thus, it applied the fifteen-year mandatory minimum sentence prescribed by 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924(e)(1). 7 King argues that his three prior burglary convictions do not qualify as violent felonies. We disagree. 13 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924(e)(2)(B)(ii) specifically lists burglary as a violent felony. 8 The statute does not, however, define burglary. The Supreme Court, recognizing that the definition of burglary varies significantly from state to state, has adopted a uniform, generic definition of burglary for the purposes of Sec. 924(e). See Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 599, 110 S.Ct. 2143, 2158-59, 109 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990). The Court defined burglary as any crime, regardless of its exact definition or label, having the basic elements of unlawful or unprivileged entry into, or remaining in, a building or structure, with intent to commit a crime. Id.; see also United States v. Simpson, 974 F.2d 845, 849 (7th Cir.1992), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 1326, 122 L.Ed.2d 711 (1993). 14 King argues that his burglaries were not violent felonies because he stole very little of value and did not enter the victims' houses surreptitiously; rather, he knocked on the front door to make sure no one was home before entering. While these facts may be accurate, Taylor bars us from considering them when deciding whether the burglaries were violent felonies. Rather, the Supreme Court declared that we may look only to the statutory definition of the crime, the charging paper, and the jury instructions to determine whether the Illinois courts necessarily found all the elements of generic burglary. See Taylor, 495 U.S. at 602, 110 S.Ct. at 2160; United States v. Howell, 37 F.3d 1197, 1207 (7th Cir.1994), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 1810, 131 L.Ed.2d 735 (1995). 15 Two of King's three burglary convictions were for the offense of residential burglary. Under Illinois law, A person commits residential burglary who knowingly and without authority enters the dwelling place of another with the intent to commit therein a felony or theft. 720 ILCS 5/19-3(a). These elements correspond to the elements of generic burglary outlined in Taylor. To convict King under Sec. 19-3, the Illinois courts must have found that the elements of generic burglary were present. Thus, his two residential burglaries were violent felonies under Sec. 924(e). 16 King's third conviction was for burglary under 720 ILCS 5/19-1. Section 19-1(a) states that A person commits burglary when without authority he knowingly enters or without authority remains within a building, housetrailer, watercraft, aircraft, motor vehicle as defined by the Illinois Vehicle Code, railroad car, or any part thereof, with intent to commit therein a felony or theft (footnote omitted). This court has noted that Sec. 19-1 is broader than the definition of generic burglary in Taylor because it includes entries into vehicles as well as buildings or structures and contains the phrase or any part thereof. A person could commit burglary under Sec. 19-1 without ever entering a building or structure--a required element under Taylor. Howell, 37 F.3d at 1206; Simpson, 974 F.2d at 849. Thus, we must examine the charging paper and/or jury instructions to determine whether the Illinois court found that King entered a building or structure. Cf. Howell, 37 F.3d at 1206-07. 17 The charging paper states that King, without authority, knowingly entered a building of Matilda Parris located at 125 South Wesley, Springfield, Sangamon County, Illinois, with the intent to commit therein a theft. King entered a building; thus, all of the elements of generic burglary were present. Consequently, the district court correctly held that King's conviction under Sec. 19-1 was a violent felony and that the fifteen-year mandatory minimum sentence applied.