Almendarez-Torres v. United States
- Decided
- March 24, 1998
- Docket
- 96-6839
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 12,622 timesQuestioned (verified)Possible negative treatment: questioned, overruled (3 of 6 verified; none is a verified overruling) · United States v. Garcia
What later courts said
- holding that § 1326(b) is a penalty provision and does not constitute a separate crime — United States v. Pablo Rivera-Sanchez (2000)
- concluding that a penalty provision that authorizes a court to increase the sentence for a recidivist does not define a separate crime — United States v. Moses Corona-Sanchez, A/K/A Enrique Sanchez-Corona (2002)
- holding that the State need not prove the fact of a prior conviction to a jury — State v. Thiefault (2007)
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 Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court Subsection (a) of 8 U. S. C. § 1326 defines a crime. It forbids an alien who once was deported to return to the United States without special permission, and it authorizes a prison term of up to, but no more than, two years. Subsection (b)(2) of the same section authorizes a prison term of up to, but no more than, 20 years for “any alien described” in subsection (a), if the initial “deportation was subsequent to a conviction for commission of an aggravated felony.” The question before us is whether this latter provision defines a separate crime or simply authorizes an enhanced penalty. If the former, i. e., if it constitutes a separate crime, then the Government must write an indictment that mentions the additional element, namely, a prior aggravated felony conviction. If the latter, i. e., if the provision simply authorizes an enhanced sentence when an offender also has an earlier conviction, then the indictment need not mention that fact, for the fact of an earlier conviction is not an element of the present crime.
We conclude that the subsection is a penalty provision, which simply authorizes a court to increase the sentence for a recidivist. It does not define a separate crime. Consequently, neither the statute nor the Constitution requires the [*227] Government to charge the factor that it mentions, an earlier conviction, in the indictment.
I
Statutes cited
- 8 U.S.C. § 1326
- 28 U.S.C. § 994
- 18 U.S.C. § 924
- 21 U.S.C. § 841
- 18 U.S.C. § 922
- 18 U.S.C. § 113
- 8 U.S.C. § 1282
- 8 U.S.C. § 1325
- 8 U.S.C. § 1327
- 8 U.S.C. § 1328
And 2 more sections cited in the full opinion.
Cite this
Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998)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.