James v. United States - Opinion Announcement

Argument of Speaker

Mr. Speaker: Justice Alito has the opinion this morning in case 05-9264, James v. United States.

Argument of Justice Alito

Mr. Alito: This case comes to us on writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

Petitioner Alphonso James pleaded guilty in Federal Court to possessing a firearm after being convicted of the felony.

Under the Armed Career Criminal Act or ACCA, James was subject to a mandatory sentence of 15 years if he had three prior convictions for a violent felony or a serious drug offense.

Because James had two prior drug convictions whether he received the mandatory minimum turned on whether the third prior conviction for attempted burglary under Florida law qualified as a violent felony.

The Court of Appeals held that it did and we affirm.

The provision of ACCA at issue 18 U. S. C. Section 924 (e)(2)(B)(ii) defines a violent felony to include burglary, arson or extortion, crimes that involve the use of explosives or offenses that “otherwise involve conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to others.

In Taylor v. United States we held that in evaluating an offense under ACCA we look not to the actual conduct of the defendant in the case at hand but rather to the elements of the crime for which the defendant was convicted.

Under this categorical approach we turned to Florida law to determine whether it defines attempted burglary in such a way that it provides the requisite serious threat of physical injury.

In order to be convicted of attempted burglary under Florida law defendant must commit an overt act directed toward entering or remaining in a structure.

Mere preparation like casing a neighborhood or obtaining burglars’ tools is not enough in determining whether attempted burglary as defined by Florida law poses the requisite risk under ACCA.

We can look to whether it presents risks comparable posed by the most analogues of the enumerated offenses here actual burglary.

Both attempted burglary and completed burglary pose the same sort of risk which arises not from the completion of the braking but rather from the chance that some third party whether a homeowner police officer or pacifier might witness the crime in progress and attempt to intervene resulting in a physical confrontation with would be burglar.

This risk is present when the defendant is at the doorstep as well as after the defendant has gained entry.

Indeed the risk posed by attempted burglary may even be greater than that posed by completed burglary.

All burglaries begin as attempts and when the attempt fails to ripe in into completion it is often because some outside party intervened.

Of course, one can imagine some attempted burglaries that would not pose a serious risk of physical injury for example,an unarmed burglar entering a remote an unoccupied house that ACCA does not require certainty only a potential risk of serious physical injury.

The proper question is whether the conduct encompassed by the element of the offense in the ordinary case presents a serious potential risk of injury to another, attempted burglary meets the standard.

We therefore conclude that attempted burglary as defined by Florida law qualifies as a violent felony under ACCA and we therefore affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

Justice Scalia has filed a dissenting opinion in which Justices Stevens and Ginsburg have joined.

Justice Thomas has filed a dissenting opinion.