Almendarez-Torres v. United States
Encyclopedia
Almendarez-Torres v. United States, , was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which confirmed that a sentencing enhancement based on a prior conviction was not subject to the Sixth Amendment
requirement that a jury determine the fact beyond a reasonable doubt.
without the "permission and consent of the Attorney General" after being deported, in violation of . He pleaded guilty, and at the plea hearing he admitted that he had been deported, that he had unlawfully returned to the United States, and that the earlier deportation had followed three convictions for aggravated felonies
.
At the sentencing hearing, Almendarez-Torres pointed out that the Sixth Amendment
required that all the elements of a crime
be spelled out in the indictment
. The indictment in this case did not mention the earlier convictions for aggravated felonies. As a result, the maximum sentence for which he was eligible was two years in prison. The district court rejected this argument and sentenced him to 85 months in prison. The Fifth Circuit
affirmed the conviction and sentence.
The Court had to decide whether subsection (b)(2), the provision that allowed the district court to impose the 85-month sentence in this case, was a separate crime or merely a penalty provision. If it defined a separate crime, then the Government's failure to include it in the indictment meant that the conviction and sentence had to be set aside. If it merely defined a penalty provision, then the conviction and sentence could stand.
Subsection (b)(2) is a penalty provision. According to the Court, it was "reasonably clear" that subsection (b)(2) defines a penalty provision. First, the provision entailed recidivism, which "is as typical a sentencing factor as one might imagine." Recidivism provisions had almost always been interpreted as penalty enhancements, not separate crimes. Second, Congress usually uses the words at the beginning of subsection (a), "subject to subsection (b)," and at the beginning of subsection (b), "notwithstanding subsection (a) of this section," to define heightened penalty provisions, not separate crimes. Finally, forcing the government to prove at trial that the defendant had previously been convicted of a crime risks making trials inherently unfair insofar as the jury, faced with such evidence, would be more inclined to convict the defendant on the basis of those prior convictions alone rather than the evidence that he is guilty of the presently charged crime.
The recidivism exception to the Sixth Amendment. The Court also held that the Sixth Amendment does not require courts to treat recidivism as an element of the crime irrespective of the intent of Congress. True, the Court had held that all "elements" of the crime must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, but it had also held that the state could place the burden of proving some sentencing factors on the defendant. But recidivism was not like an element of a crime, or most other sentencing factors, because it could neither be presumed nor proved. Indeed, recidivism is one of the oldest and most common reasons for enhancing a criminal's punishment. Because of this historical pedigree, the Court could not find support in its modern precedents for the idea that it must be proved by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt. True, a few states had such a requirement on their own, but those states had never rested this requirement on a federal constitutional guarantee. Nor does the fact that the increased punishment available is significant by itself trigger a constitutional requirement that it be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights which sets forth rights related to criminal prosecutions...
requirement that a jury determine the fact beyond a reasonable doubt.
Facts
In September 1995, Hugo Almendarez-Torres was indicted for being an alien "found in" the United StatesUnited States
The United States of America is a federal constitutional republic comprising fifty states and a federal district...
without the "permission and consent of the Attorney General" after being deported, in violation of . He pleaded guilty, and at the plea hearing he admitted that he had been deported, that he had unlawfully returned to the United States, and that the earlier deportation had followed three convictions for aggravated felonies
Aggravated felony
In United States immigration law, the term aggravated felony refers to a broad category of crimes that carry certain severe consequences for aliens seeking asylum, legal permanent resident status, citizenship, or avoidance of deportation proceedings...
.
At the sentencing hearing, Almendarez-Torres pointed out that the Sixth Amendment
Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights which sets forth rights related to criminal prosecutions...
required that all the elements of a crime
Crime
Crime is the breach of rules or laws for which some governing authority can ultimately prescribe a conviction...
be spelled out in the indictment
Indictment
An indictment , in the common-law legal system, is a formal accusation that a person has committed a crime. In jurisdictions that maintain the concept of felonies, the serious criminal offence is a felony; jurisdictions that lack the concept of felonies often use that of an indictable offence—an...
. The indictment in this case did not mention the earlier convictions for aggravated felonies. As a result, the maximum sentence for which he was eligible was two years in prison. The district court rejected this argument and sentenced him to 85 months in prison. The Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is a federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the district courts in the following districts:* Eastern District of Louisiana* Middle District of Louisiana...
affirmed the conviction and sentence.
Majority opinion
The statute at issue. The statute that defines the crime under which Almendarez-Torres was convicted reads:§ 1326. Reentry of deported alien; criminal penalties for reentry of certain deported aliens.
(a) Subject to subsection (b) of this section, any alien who—
(1) has been... deported... and thereafter
(2) enters... or at any time is found in the United States [without the consent of the Attorney General],
shall be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
(b) Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this section, in the case of any alien described in such subsection—
(1) whose deportation was subsequent to a conviction for commission of [certain misdemeanors] or a felony [other than an aggravated felony], such alien shall be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 10 years or both, or
(2) whose deporation was subsequent to a conviction for an aggravated felony, such alien shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
The Court had to decide whether subsection (b)(2), the provision that allowed the district court to impose the 85-month sentence in this case, was a separate crime or merely a penalty provision. If it defined a separate crime, then the Government's failure to include it in the indictment meant that the conviction and sentence had to be set aside. If it merely defined a penalty provision, then the conviction and sentence could stand.
Subsection (b)(2) is a penalty provision. According to the Court, it was "reasonably clear" that subsection (b)(2) defines a penalty provision. First, the provision entailed recidivism, which "is as typical a sentencing factor as one might imagine." Recidivism provisions had almost always been interpreted as penalty enhancements, not separate crimes. Second, Congress usually uses the words at the beginning of subsection (a), "subject to subsection (b)," and at the beginning of subsection (b), "notwithstanding subsection (a) of this section," to define heightened penalty provisions, not separate crimes. Finally, forcing the government to prove at trial that the defendant had previously been convicted of a crime risks making trials inherently unfair insofar as the jury, faced with such evidence, would be more inclined to convict the defendant on the basis of those prior convictions alone rather than the evidence that he is guilty of the presently charged crime.
The recidivism exception to the Sixth Amendment. The Court also held that the Sixth Amendment does not require courts to treat recidivism as an element of the crime irrespective of the intent of Congress. True, the Court had held that all "elements" of the crime must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, but it had also held that the state could place the burden of proving some sentencing factors on the defendant. But recidivism was not like an element of a crime, or most other sentencing factors, because it could neither be presumed nor proved. Indeed, recidivism is one of the oldest and most common reasons for enhancing a criminal's punishment. Because of this historical pedigree, the Court could not find support in its modern precedents for the idea that it must be proved by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt. True, a few states had such a requirement on their own, but those states had never rested this requirement on a federal constitutional guarantee. Nor does the fact that the increased punishment available is significant by itself trigger a constitutional requirement that it be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Dissenting opinion
Reading the text of subsections (a) and (b), Justice Scalia concluded that the recidivism provisions of subsections (b)(1) and (2) were additional elements of separate crimes. This conclusion had two premises. First, the two subsections had parallel language that was nearly identical. Second, concluding that Congress had intended for subsection (b) to define separate crimes would have allowed the Court to avoid deciding the constitutional question of whether the Sixth Amendment required the Court to construe subsection (b) in that way regardless of Congress's intent.See also
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 523
- List of United States Supreme Court cases
- Lists of United States Supreme Court cases by volume