Background
Victor Chox-Gonzalez appealed his sentence for illegal reentry into the United States after deportation in violation of Section eight thousand three hundred twenty-six, subsections a and b one. He argued that the sentencing enhancement in subsection b one is unconstitutional because it allows a defendant to be sentenced above the statutory maximum of subsection a based on a prior felony conviction that was not alleged in the indictment or found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
The court’s reasoning
The court noted that the defendant conceded the issue was foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres versus United States. The court cited United States versus Pervis and Erlinger versus United States, explaining that Almendarez-Torres persists as a narrow exception permitting judges to find only the fact of a prior conviction. Because summary affirmance was appropriate, the court granted the government’s motion for summary affirmance.
Almendarez-Torres persists as a narrow exception permitting judges to find only the fact of a prior conviction
Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821, 838 (2024)
What it means going forward
The decision reaffirms that prior conviction enhancements under Section eight thousand three hundred twenty-six do not require jury findings under current Fifth Circuit and Supreme Court authority.