Opinion ID: 166033
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Shepard and the ACCA

Text: 39 Although Taylor cannot meet his burden under the plain error standard regarding the enhancement for possession of a firearm in connection with a controlled substance offense, the Supreme Court's recent opinion in Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 1254, 161 L.Ed.2d 205 (2005), requires us to remand for limited further proceedings. 40 Three days prior to oral argument in this case, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Shepard. Shepard is the Court's most recent explanation of its decision in Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 110 S.Ct. 2143, 109 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990), which held that when a court determines whether a crime constitutes a violent felony under the ACCA, the Sixth Amendment requires it to take a formal categorical approach, looking only to the statutory definitions of the prior offenses, and not to the particular facts underlying those convictions. Id. at 600, 110 S.Ct. 2143. 41 Unlike the prior convictions in Taylor, which followed jury trials, the prior convictions at issue in Shepard were the result of guilty pleas. The Court found  Taylor's reasoning controls the identification of ... convictions following pleas, as well as convictions on verdicts. Shepard, 125 S.Ct. at 1259. As a consequence, when determining whether a prior conviction resulting from a guilty plea is a violent felony for purposes of the ACCA, a court is limited to an examination of the language of the statute of conviction, the terms of the charging document, the terms of a plea agreement or transcript of colloquy between judge and defendant . . ., or to some comparable judicial record of this information. Id. at 1262. 5 In addition, the ACCA only applies if a person has three previous convictions by any court ... for a violent felony or a serious drug offense, or both, committed on occasions different from one another.... 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). 42 Taylor does not dispute his prior convictions are violent felonies. Instead, he argues the record fails to support the district court's conclusion that two of his three prior convictions arose from a different criminal episode under § 924(e). 6 If the record does not show that his prior armed robberies were committed on separate occasions, Taylor claims that Shepard and Taylor compel the court to disregard the ACCA enhancement. 43 There is yet very little post- Shepard guidance in the case law. Prior to Shepard, we held that the ACCA enhancement was intended to reach multiple criminal episodes distinct in time and that a court could make this determination under the Guidelines. United States v. Tisdale, 921 F.2d 1095, 1098-99 (10th Cir.1990) (finding three different burglaries in the same building on the same day sufficiently distinct). The Seventh Circuit, however, recently concluded that whether prior crimes are part of a common scheme is [] a fact question that a court must resolve after Shepard by consideration of a sufficient judicial record from the prior proceeding. United States v. Ngo, 406 F.3d 839, 842-43 (7th Cir.2005) (reviewing burglaries ten days apart). In all likelihood, depending on the evidence presented to the court, this type of question will generally be a mixed question of law and fact. See United States v. Yazzie, 407 F.3d 1139, 1148 (10th Cir.2005) (whether underlying facts qualified defendant for Guidelines enhancement was mixed question of law and fact). 44 Unfortunately, based on the record before us, we cannot determine whether the district court reviewed judicial records consistent with Shepard. The PSR appears to have relied upon both police reports and court documents. At sentencing the judge commented on the PSR and mentioned a report prepared by the probation office. The record, however, does not tell us what these materials were and how they were documented. While it is unlikely that the predicate crimes of armed robbery arose on the same occasion, we nonetheless are compelled to remand this matter to the district court for the following further limited proceedings: 45 1) to determine whether the government can provide evidence regarding Taylor's prior violent crime convictions consistent with Shepard; and 46 2) in the event the government cannot provide such evidence, to resentence Taylor consistent with this opinion and Shepard.