Opinion ID: 176848
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Physical Force as an Element of the Offense

Text: Schmidt insists that theft of firearms from a federally licensed dealer does not include, as a required element, the use, attempted use or threatened use of physical force against a person. The statute specifies that; It shall be unlawful for a person to steal or unlawfully take or carry away from the person or the premises of a person who is licensed to engaged in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms, any firearm in the licensee’s business inventory that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.11 Schmidt contends that when determining whether an offense qualifies as a violent felony, the court is only allowed to look at the terms of the statute and may not consider the underlying facts of the case. Schmidt is correct that a court may only consider the elements of the conviction statute and not the specific conduct of the offender. The Supreme Court has mandated a categorical approach for deciding whether a prior conviction is a violent felony for the purposes of the ACCA.12 This is because “the language of § 924(e) [the ACCA] generally supports the inference that Congress intended the sentencing court to look only to the fact that the defendant had been convicted of crimes falling within certain categories, and not to the facts underlying the prior convictions.”13 This approach is necessary because, otherwise, a particular crime might be considered a violent offense and 10 Id. § 924(e)(2)(B) (2010). 11 Id. § 922(u) (2010). 12 Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 600 (1990). 13 Id. 5 Case: 09-31138 Document: 00511256291 Page: 6 Date Filed: 10/07/2010 No. 09-31138 count towards enhancement on some occasions and not on others, depending on the discrete facts. In addition, anything but the categorical approach would require sentencing courts to engage in elaborate fact finding about the defendant’s prior offenses. This is why the sentencing court must “consider not how the defendant committed the crime, but how the crime is generally committed.” 14 Schmidt was not convicted under the “person” prong of § 922(u) but rather under its “premises” prong, because (1) the indictment charges that he “did steal and unlawfully take and carry away from the premises and inventory of A-1 Gun Repair, a licensed dealer” and (2) his factual basis states that the defendants broke the front window of the shop, entered it, and stole 11 handguns. Stealing from such a premises does not necessarily involve the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against a person because it can be completed without anyone else being present. Therefore, this offense is not a violent offense under the first prong of the ACCA.