United States v. Christopher Stowell, No. 21-2234 (8th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
After Defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, the district court designated him an armed career criminal and sentenced him to 180 months in prison. Defendant appealed, arguing that his predicate offenses were not committed on different occasions, a requirement for the armed career criminal sentencing enhancement. Alternatively, Defendant argued that the Sixth Amendment required a jury to find that he committed his predicate offenses on different occasions.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed. Defendant’s PSR shows a 2004 burglary conviction and two 2006 battery convictions. According to charging documents, the battery offenses involved different victims and occurred on different days, one on or about March 8 and the other on or about March 11. Defendant argued that the 2006 convictions were committed on the same occasion because he was arrested and convicted on the same dates for both offenses. The court explained that the multi-day gap separating the battery offenses strongly supports a finding that Defendant committed them on different occasions. Accordingly, the court held that all things considered, the district court did not err when it concluded that Defendant committed his prior offenses on different occasions.
Court Description: [Kobes, Author, for the Court En Banc] Criminal case - Sentencing. The district court did not err in determining that defendant's predicate offenses were committed on different occasions and could serve as the basis for sentencing defendant as an armed career criminal; the multi-day gap separating the battery offenses strongly supported a finding that defendant committed them on different occasions; even assuming that the Sixth Amendment requires a jury to determine whether the offenses were committed on different occasions, the district court's error in deciding the question for itself was harmless, as no reasonable jury could find defendant committed the offenses on the same occasion, considering they occurred days apart and involved different victims. Judge Erickson, with whom Judge Kelly joins, dissenting. Judges Grasz and Judge Stras join Part B of the dissent.
This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on July 25, 2022.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.