Criminal law - First Circuit upholds constitutionality of juvenile convictions as predicate offenses under the Armed Career Criminal Act.

• Author: Kasollja, Redi

Criminal Law--First Circuit Upholds Constitutionality of Juvenile Convictions as Predicate Offenses Under the Armed Career Criminal Act--United States v. Matthews, 498 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2007)

The Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) is a recidivist statute that punishes repeated criminal behavior. (1) Specifically, the ACCA enhances the minimum penalty for those who unlawfully possess firearms and have a history of prior felony convictions. (2) To constitute a predicate felony conviction under ACCA, the prior convictions must have resulted from a crime involving violence or a serious drug offense. (3) In United States v. Matthews, (4) the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit considered whether using a criminal defendant's prior juvenile adjudication as a sentencing enhancement under the ACCA offends the Constitution. (5) The First Circuit held that the ACCA's sentencing enhancement based on prior juvenile adjudications does not violate a defendant's right to due process of law. (6)

On August 11, 2003, plain-clothed officers patrolled the streets of Boston's Roxbury neighborhood. (7) The officers observed Larry Matthews and others drinking alcohol outside of a housing project. (8) Upon seeing the officers approach in an unmarked cruiser, Matthews, a previously-convicted felon, adjusted his pants to secure a concealed item. (9) When one of the officers called out to Matthews by name, he immediately ran away. (10) During the ensuing chase, officers found a .22-caliber handgun underneath a mat outside the apartment where Matthews sought refuge. (11) The police arrested Matthews and the government charged him with the crime of being a felon in possession of a firearm. (12)

After a jury found Matthews guilty, the judge sentenced him to fifteen years in prison. (13) The trial judge applied the ACCA's enhanced penalty provision because Matthews had three prior felony convictions, one of which was a juvenile adjudication. (14) Matthews appealed his sentence enhancement on grounds that a juvenile adjudication cannot constitute a predicate felony conviction under the ACCA. (15) The First Circuit affirmed the sentence by ruling that juvenile convictions may serve as a predicate offense without violating an individual's due process rights. (16)

Many criminal proceedings conclude with the sentencing stage, where the trial judge determines a proper punishment by considering certain factors. (17) Constrained only by constitutional and statutory limitations, the presiding judge may consider the evidence at trial, the defendant's demeanor, and a pre-sentence report in fashioning a sentence. (18) As a mandatory minimum sentencing provision, however, the ACCA explicitly requires trial judges to impose lengthier sentences upon those possessing a firearm after three prior felony convictions. (19) The ACCA's harsh and mandatory penalty reflects Congress's desire to reduce crime by incapacitating dangerous career criminals. (20)

The Supreme Court has generally upheld habitual criminal statutes such as the ACCA. (21) In Apprendi v. New Jersey, (22) the Court held that the prosecution must list in the indictment, submit to a jury, and prove beyond a reasonable doubt any fact that increases a sentence beyond the statutory maximum penalty, unless such fact constitutes a prior conviction. (23) The Court did not include prior convictions among the "facts" that the prosecution must establish beyond a reasonable doubt because such verdicts rest on trials equipped with all constitutionally-mandated procedural protections, including due process and the jury trial guarantee. (24) While the Supreme Court has not addressed whether juvenile adjudications qualify as "convictions" under the Apprendi exception, many urge that courts should interpret Apprendi's emphasis on the importance of jury trials as barring the use of delinquency dispositions to invoke the ACCA sentencing enhancement. (25) According to this theory, the law should treat juvenile and adult convictions differently because juvenile defendants face procedural inequities and do not enjoy the same constitutional rights as their adult counterparts. (26) Perhaps nothing better illustrates this disparity than McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, (27) where the Court held that the Constitution does not grant the jury trial right to accused delinquents. (28)

Absent a Supreme Court ruling on the issue, a circuit split, albeit mainly one-sided, has emerged on whether considering nonjury juvenile adjudications as convictions under the ACCA violates the constitutional principle set forth in Apprendi. (29) Representing the minority view, the Ninth Circuit has held that juvenile convictions cannot serve as ACCA predicate offenses if the proceedings from which they resulted did not offer the defendant the right to fair notice, proof beyond reasonable doubt, and trial by jury. (30) The Ninth Circuit concluded that the jury trial is an indispensable component to Apprendi's procedural triumvirate. (31) Conversely, other circuits have ruled that a juvenile adjudication is reliable, even in absence of the jury trial guarantee. (32) These courts conclude so because the Constitution affords juveniles sufficient procedural protections, like the right to obtain counsel, confront and cross-examine accusers, refrain from self-incrimination, and require proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. (33) The majority of courts have criticized the Ninth Circuit for reading an exception for juvenile proceedings into Apprendi's holding, especially since Apprendi never specifically referred to delinquencies. (34) In sum, the majority of circuits conclude juvenile adjudications are sufficiently reliable without a jury trial to fall within the Apprendi exception, whereas the minority view holds the jury trial is a necessary component of the reliability test. (35)

In United States v. Matthews, the First Circuit determined that prior juvenile adjudications, if reliable, may trigger the ACCA's sentencing enhancement, without the prosecution having to prove such convictions beyond a reasonable doubt. (36) The court summarized the current circuit split, agreed that the issue turns on whether juvenile adjudications are sufficiently reliable so as not to offend due process, but chose not to side with any of the other circuits. (37) The court concluded that juvenile and adult adjudications do not differ for the purpose of applying the ACCA's sentencing enhancement. (38) The court therefore affirmed the constitutionality of using juvenile convictions as ACCA sentencing factors when they share the same reliability as their adult counterparts. (39) The court, however, did not decide whether the right to a jury trial is a necessary prerequisite to the reliability that Apprendi demands. (40) Without affecting the circuit split in either direction, the court concluded that Matthews's juvenile conviction qualified as an ACCA predicate offense because he enjoyed the right to a jury trial under Massachusetts law. (41)

The First Circuit correctly held that the government need not prove a reliable prior juvenile conviction beyond a reasonable doubt when seeking a sentencing enhancement under the ACCA. (42) By focusing on the determination of reliability, the court successfully found common ground among the diverging understandings of Apprendi. (43) The court also correctly pointed out that, in general, courts should treat both juvenile and adult convictions as sentencing-enhancement factors. (44) More importantly, the court properly concluded that Matthews's prior juvenile conviction constituted a predicate offense under the ACCA because Massachusetts afforded him the right to a jury trial. (45)

The First Circuit, however, failed to decide whether Apprendi reliability requires that a juvenile defendant possess the jury trial right before using his adjudication as a prior conviction under the ACCA. (46) Had the court taken a position, it should have adopted the Ninth Circuit approach and held that a juvenile adjudication can count as an ACCA conviction only if the jurisdiction in which the proceeding transpired offered the defendant the right to a jury trial. (47) Not only does Supreme Court precedent in Apprendi and Jones v. United States (48) support this conclusion, but so do other practical considerations, such as the criminalization of the juvenile justice system and its accompanying procedural injustices. (49) The court should have also rejected the majority approach because it directly contradicts the Supreme Court's emphasis on the importance of the jury trial guarantee. (50) The majority view also incorrectly relied on McKeiver to conclude that an Apprendi conviction does not...