Taylor v. United States
- Decided
- May 29, 1990
- Docket
- 88-7194
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 5,461 timesOverruled (not yet verified)Possible negative treatment: overruled (not yet verified) · Jerry Brown v. United States
What later courts said
- holding that a state conviction constitutes an aggravated felony for purposes of sentence enhancement where the offense charged satisfies the generic definition of the crime — Jose Francisco Nunes v. John Ashcroft, United States Attorney General (2004)
- holding that burglary is a violent felony for purposes of sentence enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) — United States v. Velazquez-Overa (1996)
- concluding that Congress meant to import the generic definitions of offenses into sentencing enhancement statutes — United States v. Juan Espinoza-Cano (2006)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Justice Blackmun delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case we are called upon to determine the meaning of the word “burglary” as it is used in § 1402 of Subtitle I (the Career Criminals Amendment Act of 1986) of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, 18 U. S. C. § 924(e). This statute provides a sentence enhancement for a defendant who is convicted under 18 U. S. C. § 922(g) (unlawful possession of a [*578] firearm) and who has three prior convictions for specified types of offenses, including “burglary.”
H-i Under 18 U. S. C. § 922(g)(1), it is unlawful for a person who has been convicted previously for a felony to possess a firearm. A defendant convicted for a violation of § 922(g)(1) is subject to the sentence-enhancement provision at issue, § 924(e):
Statutes cited
Cite this
Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.