United States v. Stanley Silva ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                   United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 19-1082
    ___________________________
    United States of America
    lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    Stanley William Silva
    lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield
    ____________
    Submitted: November 12, 2019
    Filed: December 13, 2019
    ____________
    Before SHEPHERD, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    KOBES, Circuit Judge.
    Stanley William Silva pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm as a convicted
    felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court1 found he was a career
    1
    The Honorable Roseann A. Ketchmark, United States District Judge for
    the Western District of Missouri.
    offender under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), because he had
    two state convictions for serious drug offenses and a state burglary conviction that
    was a violent felony. He was sentenced to 15 years in prison (the minimum sentence
    for a career offender) followed by five years of supervised release. He appeals,
    challenging the district court’s finding that his burglary conviction was under Miss.
    Code § 97-17-23 and therefore an ACCA predicate offense. We affirm.
    A “violent felony” under the ACCA includes any state or federal felony that
    “is burglary, arson, or extortion.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii). To decide whether
    a state conviction qualifies as generic burglary, courts apply the categorical approach,
    looking “only to the fact of conviction and the statutory definition of the prior
    offense.” United States v. Shockley, 
    816 F.3d 1058
    , 1062 (8th Cir. 2016). However,
    before applying the categorical approach, the district court must determine the statute
    of conviction. See United States v. Twiggs, 
    678 F.3d 671
    , 674 (8th Cir. 2012). This
    is a factual finding that we review for clear error. 
    Id. There are
    two possible statutes of conviction for Silva’s burglary offense
    (called “Burglary & Larceny” on the judgment and the “notice of criminal
    disposition” reviewed by the district court).2 One, Miss. Code § 97-17-23, defines
    burglary as “breaking and entering the dwelling house or inner door of such dwelling
    house of another . . . with intent to commit some crime therein,” and can result in up
    to 25 years in prison. The other, Miss. Code § 97-17-33(1), defines burglary as the
    breaking and entering of structures other than a dwelling house, and can be punished
    by up to seven years in prison. The parties agree that § 97-17-23 describes generic
    burglary while § 97-17-33(1) is overbroad and not an ACCA predicate offense.
    The district court considered three documents attesting to Silva’s conviction
    to determine that he had been convicted under § 97-17-23. First, a Lee County
    2
    Mississippi does not have a crime called “Burglary & Larceny.”
    -2-
    Circuit Court Order, dated February 15, 2000, entering judgment against him on a
    guilty plea of “Burglary & Larceny,” and “sentenc[ing him] to serve a term of twenty-
    five (25) years” in prison, suspending 15 years. Second, an indictment, dated October
    25, 1999, to which he pleaded “guilty as charged,” charging him with “willfully,
    feloniously and burglariously break[ing] and enter[ing] a certain dwelling . . . with
    the felonious and burglarious intent to take, steal, and carry away [] goods, chattels
    and personal property . . . .” Third, a notice of criminal disposition to the Mississippi
    Department of Corrections, dated February 24, 2000, recording a single conviction
    for “Burglary & Larceny.” No document references the statute of conviction.
    The district court did not commit clear error in deciding that Silva was
    convicted for violating § 97-17-23. The indictment tracks the language of that statute
    by describing his crime as breaking into a dwelling, not one of the other structures
    listed in § 97-17-33(1) and the judgment notes that he pleaded “guilty as charged” in
    the indictment. Plus, his 25-year sentence is only possible under § 97-17-23.
    Although Silva has not offered any other explanation for his conviction and
    sentence, he argues against “reasoning backward” in this way. Specifically, Silva
    claims that determining the statute of conviction based on the sentence and language
    in the indictment and plea does not comport with “‘Taylor’s demand for certainty’
    when determining whether a defendant was convicted of a generic offense.” Mathis
    v. United States, 
    136 S. Ct. 2243
    , 2257 (2016) (quoting Shepard v. United States, 
    544 U.S. 13
    , 21 (2005)). However, the “demand for certainty” refers to our need to be
    certain, when applying the modified categorical approach, that a given conviction
    represents a finding that a defendant committed the generic version of a crime. The
    modified categorical approach is separate from the factual inquiry into the statutory
    basis of a conviction that is at issue here. 
    Twiggs, 678 F.3d at 676
    . In this context,
    we affirm if the district court did not clearly err, even though records may not
    establish the statute of conviction “with complete clarity.” 
    Id. at 675.
    -3-
    The documents reviewed by the district court show that Silva broke into a
    dwelling and committed the crime of larceny. That conduct is criminalized by Miss.
    Code § 97-17-23. The elements of § 97-17-23 describe the generic offense of
    burglary. Therefore, the district court correctly classified Silva as a career offender
    and his sentence is affirmed.
    ______________________________
    -4-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19-1082

Filed Date: 12/13/2019

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 12/13/2019