Court Opinion

ID: 9491589
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 14:18:17.568266+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:54:50.270224
License: Public Domain

TROTT, Circuit Judge,
Concurring and Dissenting,
Although I agree with my colleagues that McElyea’s civil rights had not been restored and that the jury instruction issue he brings to us has no merit, I regretfully disagree with their application to him of the Armed Career Criminal Act. I do so because I believe that the Tenth Circuit’s interpretation in United States v. Tisdale, 921 F.2d 1095 (10th Cir.1990) of the phrase “occasions different from one another” is correct, the combative and irrelevant testimony of an ag*1022gressive assistant attorney general notwithstanding. The Tenth Circuit said,
We find the trial court’s reasoning persuasive. After the defendant “successfully completed” burglarizing one business, he was free to leave. The fact that he chose, instead, to burglarize another business is evidence of his intent to engage in a separate criminal episode. Moreover, unlike Petty, the defendant’s burglaries did not occur at the same location. The record shows that although defendant entered one shopping mall he had to physically break and enter three separate structures. The fact each incident occurred inside one enclosed structure does not alter our conclusion that the crimes were committed at different locations. Thus we find that the trial court properly enhanced the defendant’s penalty under § 924(e)(1).
Id. at 1009.
We reviewed this very analysis in United States v. Antonie, 953 F.2d at 496 (9th Cir.1991). At that time, we said about Tisdale that “[w]e are not persuaded that ... we should disagree with our sister circuits’ applications of [§ 924(e), as amended].” I-d. at 499. Nevertheless, this panel opts seven years later to disagree with Tisdale and to aggravate an intercircuit conflict. I decline to sign on to what I respectfully consider to be a mistake with respect to the intent and reach of the plain language of the Armed Career Criminal Act. I can only hope that the eases decided in reliance on our statements about Tisdale in Antonie are not damaged by our about-face.