Court Opinion

ID: 9487391
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 12:15:12.72525+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:52:14.300444
License: Public Domain

BALDOCK, Circuit Judge,
dissenting in part.
I am unable to join that portion of this court’s opinion reversing Defendant’s' sen-*982tenee pursuant to the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). Relying on United States v. Barney, 955 F.2d 635, 639 (10th Cir.1992), this court holds that the government was required to produce the text of Defendant’s guilty plea to his 1966 second degree burglary conviction in order to prove Defendant was convicted of conduct which fell within the generic definition of burglary as set forth in Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 110 S.Ct. 2143, 109 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990). Because I conclude the government established that Defendant’s 1966 burglary conviction represents conduct falling within Taylor’s definition of burglary even in the absence of the text of Defendant’s guilty plea, I must respectfully dissent.
In Taylor, the Supreme Court defined burglary for § 924(e) enhancement purposes as an “unlawful or unprivileged entry into, or remaining in, a building or structure, with intent to commit a crime.” Taylor, 495 U.S. at 599, 110 S.Ct. at 2158. Where a defendant has been convicted under a state statute which defines burglary broader than Taylor, the conviction may nevertheless be used for enhancement purposes if “the charging paper and jury instructions actually required the jury to find all the elements of generic burglary in order to convict the defendant.” Id. at 602, 110 S.Ct. at 2160.
In instances where no jury instructions exist because the defendant pleaded guilty, we held in Barney that the sentencing court may review “the underlying indictment or information and the text of the guilty plea to determine whether the defendant was charged with and admitted conduct which falls without question within the ambit of Taylor’s generic definition.” Barney, 955 F.2d at 639. If the defendant pleaded guilty to charges supported by an indictment or information satisfying Taylor’s burglary definition, the conviction may be used for enhancement purposes. Id. at 640.
Applying Barney to the instant case, this court concludes that although the government submitted Defendant’s burglary information and the “judgment and sentence on plea of guilty” to second degree burglary in support of the enhancement, Defendant’s sentence must be reversed because the government did not introduce the text of Defendant’s guilty plea. In the absence of the text of the plea, this court concludes the district court “had no way of knowing precisely what acts Defendant admitted to committing under Barney.” The court further concludes the judgment of conviction fails to compensate for the lack of the text of the plea because the judgment merely states that Defendant pleaded guilty to “second degree burglary.” As a result, this court holds the government failed to prove Defendant’s 1966 burglary conviction represented conduct satisfying Taylofs generic burglary definition. I disagree.
Although Barney permits a sentencing court to examine the text of the guilty plea, see id. at 639, I do not read Barney as requiring the government to introduce the text of the plea where the charging instrument and judgment necessarily show that the defendant’s conviction represents conduct falling within the ambit of Taylor’s burglary definition.1 Indeed, in United States v. Lujan, 9 F.3d 890, 892 (10th Cir.1993) — a case involving the government’s obligation to introduce jury instructions to support an enhancement — -we held that Taylor does not “require the government to provide jury instructions in a case where the charging document and verdict necessarily show that the jury found the requisite elements of burglary.”
Likewise, in the instant case, the charging document and the judgment — when read as a whole — “establish without question, that [Defendant’s 1966 burglary conviction] fulfills the elements required by Taylor.” Barney, 955 F.2d at 640. The information charged Defendant with second degree burglary and stated in explicit detail that Defendant:
unlawfully, wrongfully, wilfully [sic], felo-niously and burglariously, [broke] and en*983tered into a certain building ... owned by and in possession of STANDARD MOTOR SUPPLY in which building personal property of value was kept and contained, by breaking open the, outer skylight of the said building, and entering the said building without the consent of said owner, with the wilfull [sic] and felonious intent to steal said property.
Defendant’s burglary information included all the elements of a generic burglary as defined in Taylor. Moreover, the corresponding judgment indicates that Defendant pleaded guilty to second degree burglary. By pleading guilty, Defendant necessarily admitted “all material facts alleged in the charge.” United States v. Kelsey, 15 F.3d 152, 153 (10th Cir.1994). Because Defendant pleaded guilty to a charge supported by an information which satisfied the Taylor definition, his 1966 burglary conviction properly counts toward enhancement.
I would affirm the sentence imposed by the district court.

. As pointed out in this court's opinion, the government might be required to introduce the text of a defendant's guilty plea where the crime with which the defendant is charged differs from the crime he ultimately pleads guilty to in a plea bargain. However, we are not presented with such a scenario in this case. Rather, Defendant was charged in an information with a single count of second degree burglary and pleaded guilty to this count.