Quarles v. United States
| Decision Date | 10 June 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. 17-778,17-778 |
| Citation | 139 S.Ct. 1872 |
| Parties | Jamar Alonzo QUARLES, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Jeremy C. Marwell, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.
Zachary D. Tripp, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Noel J. Francisco, Solicitor General, Brian A. Benczkowski, Assistant Attorney General, Eric J. Feigin, Zachary D. Tripp, Assistants to the Solicitor, General, David M. Lieberman, Attorney, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Daniel R. Ortiz, University of Virginia, School of Law, Supreme Court, Litigation Clinic, Charlottesville, VA, Mark T. Stancil, Matthew M. Madden, Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck, Untereiner & Sauber LLP, Washington, DC, John P. Elwood, Jeremy C. Marwell, Joshua S. Johnson, Matthew X. Etchemendy, Vinson & Elkins LLP, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.
Section 924(e) of Title 18, also known as the Armed Career Criminal Act, mandates a minimum 15-year prison sentence for a felon who unlawfully possesses a firearm and has three prior convictions for a "serious drug offense" or "violent felony." Section 924(e) defines "violent felony" to include "burglary." Under this Court's 1990 decision in Taylor v. United States , 495 U.S. 575, 110 S.Ct. 2143, 109 L.Ed.2d 607, the generic statutory term "burglary" means "unlawful or unprivileged entry into, or remaining in , a building or structure, with intent to commit a crime." Id ., at 599, 110 S.Ct. 2143 (emphasis added).
The exceedingly narrow question in this case concerns remaining-in burglary. The question is whether remaining-in burglary (i) occurs only if a person has the intent to commit a crime at the exact moment when he or she first unlawfully remains in a building or structure, or (ii) more broadly, occurs when a person forms the intent to commit a crime at any time while unlawfully remaining in a building or structure. For purposes of § 924(e), we conclude that remaining-in burglary occurs when the defendant forms the intent to commit a crime at any time while unlawfully remaining in a building or structure. We affirm the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
On August 24, 2013, police officers in Grand Rapids, Michigan, responded to a 911 call. When the officers arrived at the scene, the caller, Chasity Warren, told the officers that she had just escaped from her boyfriend, Jamar Quarles. Warren said that Quarles had threatened her at gunpoint and also hit her. While the police officers were speaking with Warren, Quarles drove by. The officers then arrested Quarles and later searched his house. Inside they found a semiautomatic pistol.
Quarles pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Quarles had at least three prior convictions that appeared to qualify as violent felonies under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). Those three convictions were: (1) a 2002 Michigan conviction for third-degree home invasion stemming from an attempt to chase down an ex-girlfriend who had sought refuge in a nearby apartment; (2) a 2004 Michigan conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon based on an incident where Quarles held a gun to the head of another ex-girlfriend and threatened to kill her; and (3) a 2008 Michigan conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon arising from an altercation with another man and that same ex-girlfriend in which Quarles shot at the man.
In the sentencing proceedings for his federal felon-in-possession offense, Quarles argued that his 2002 Michigan conviction for third-degree home invasion did not qualify as a burglary under § 924(e). Under this Court's precedents, the District Court had to decide whether the Michigan statute under which Quarles was convicted in 2002 was broader than the generic definition of burglary set forth in Taylor (in which case the conviction would not qualify as a prior conviction under § 924(e) ) or, instead, whether the Michigan statute "substantially correspond[ed]" to or was narrower than the generic definition of burglary set forth in Taylor. 495 U.S. at 602, 110 S.Ct. 2143. To reiterate, Taylor interpreted burglary under § 924(e) to mean "unlawful or unprivileged entry into, or remaining in , a building or structure, with intent to commit a crime." Id ., at 599, 110 S.Ct. 2143 (emphasis added).
Under the Michigan law at issue here, a person commits third-degree home invasion if he or she "breaks and enters a dwelling or enters a dwelling without permission and, at any time while he or she is entering, present in , or exiting the dwelling, commits a misdemeanor." Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 750.110a(4)(a) (West 2004) (emphasis added). Quarles argued to the District Court that the Michigan third-degree home invasion statute swept too broadly to qualify as burglary under § 924(e) because the Michigan statute encompassed situations where the defendant forms the intent to commit a crime at any time while unlawfully remaining in a dwelling, not at the exact moment when the defendant is first unlawfully present in a dwelling. The District Court rejected that argument and sentenced Quarles to 17 years in prison. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. 850 F. 3d 836, 840 (2017). We granted certiorari in light of a Circuit split on the question of how to assess state remaining-in burglary statutes for purposes of § 924(e). 586 U.S. ––––, 139 S.Ct. 914, 202 L.Ed.2d 640 (2019).
Section 924(e) lists "burglary" as a qualifying predicate offense for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act. But § 924(e) does not define "burglary." The question here is how to define "burglary" under § 924(e). We do not write on a clean slate. See Taylor , 495 U.S. at 599, 110 S.Ct. 2143.
At common law, burglary was confined to unlawful breaking and entering a dwelling at night with the intent to commit a felony. See, e.g. , 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 224 (1769). But by the time Congress passed and President Reagan signed the current version of § 924(e) in 1986, state burglary statutes had long since departed from the common-law formulation. See Taylor , 495 U.S. at 593–596, 110 S.Ct. 2143. In addition to casting off relics like the requirement that there be a breaking, or that the unlawful entry occur at night, a majority of States by 1986 prohibited unlawfully "remaining in" a building or structure with intent to commit a crime. Those remaining-in statutes closed a loophole in some States' laws by extending burglary to cover situations where a person enters a structure lawfully but stays unlawfully—for example, by remaining in a store after closing time without permission to do so.
In the 1990 Taylor decision, this Court interpreted the term "burglary" in § 924(e) in accord with the more expansive understanding of burglary that had become common by 1986: "We believe that Congress meant by ‘burglary’ the generic sense in which the term is now used in the criminal codes of most States." 495 U.S. at 598, 110 S.Ct. 2143. The Court concluded that generic burglary under § 924(e) means "unlawful or unprivileged entry into, or remaining in , a building or structure, with intent to commit a crime." Id. , at 599, 110 S.Ct. 2143 (emphasis added). A defendant's prior conviction under a state statute qualifies as a predicate burglary under § 924(e) if the state statute—regardless of its "exact definition or label"—"substantially corresponds" to or is narrower than the generic definition of burglary. Id., at 599, 602, 110 S.Ct. 2143.
In this case, we must determine the scope of generic remaining-in burglary under Taylor —in particular, the timing of the intent requirement. Quarles argues that remaining-in burglary occurs only when the defendant has the intent to commit a crime at the exact moment when he or she first unlawfully remains in a building or structure. The Government argues for a broader definition of remaining-in burglary. According to the Government, remaining-in burglary occurs when the defendant forms the intent to commit a crime at any time while unlawfully present in a building or structure. We agree with the Government.
As noted, Taylor interpreted generic burglary under § 924(e) to include remaining-in burglary. Id ., at 599, 110 S.Ct. 2143. In ordinary usage, "remaining in" refers to a continuous activity. See United States v. Cores , 356 U.S. 405, 408, 78 S.Ct. 875, 2 L.Ed.2d 873 (1958) ; see also Webster's New International Dictionary 2106 (2d ed. 1949); 8 Oxford English Dictionary 418 (1933). This Court has followed that ordinary meaning in analogous legal contexts. For example, when interpreting a federal criminal statute punishing any " ‘alien crewman who willfully remains in the United States in excess of the number of days allowed,’ " the Court stated that "the crucial word ‘remains’ permits no connotation other than continuing presence." Cores , 356 U.S. at 408, 78 S.Ct. 875. The law of trespass likewise proscribes remaining on the land of another without permission. In that context, the term "remain" refers to "a continuing trespass for the entire time during which the actor wrongfully remains." Restatement (Second) of Torts § 158, Comment m, p. 280 (1965).
Those interpretations of "remaining in" in analogous areas of the law inform our interpretation of "remaining-in" burglary in § 924(e). In particular, the common understanding of "remaining in" as a continuous event means that burglary occurs for purposes of § 924(e) if the defendant forms the intent to commit a crime at any time during the continuous event of unlawfully remaining in a building or structure. To put it in conventional criminal law terms: Because the actus reus is a continuous event, the mens rea matches the actus reus so long as the burglar forms the intent to commit a crime at any time while unlawfully present in the building or structure.
Quarles insists, however, that to constitute a burglary under § 924(e), the intent to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Ashby
...common origins, modern burglary law often differs significantly between jurisdictions. See Quarles v. United States , ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 1872, 1879, 204 L. Ed. 2d 200 (2019). Such variations are, without more, generally insufficient to overcome the weighty considerations attendant to......
-
United States v. Bugh, Case No. 11-CR-0072 (PJS/SER)
...940.This aspect of the McArthur decision was recently abrogated by the United States Supreme Court in Quarles v. United States , ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 1872, 204 L.Ed.2d 200 (2019). The Supreme Court rejected decisions (such as McArthur ) that had held that the "remaining-in" version of ......
-
United States v. Ruth, No. 20-1034
...question there was whether the state law " ‘substantially corresponds’ to (or is narrower than) generic burglary." ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 1872, 1880, 204 L.Ed.2d 200 (2019) (quoting Taylor , 495 U.S. at 602, 110 S.Ct. 2143 ). But Quarles , like Taylor itself, involved the generic-offense......
-
Saint Anthony Hosp. v. Eagleson
...to defeat the statute's evident purpose in most cases. We decline to read the text in such a manner. Quarles v. United States , ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 1872, 1879, 204 L.Ed.2d 200 (2019) ("We should not lightly conclude that Congress enacted a self-defeating statute."). If the text requir......
-
THE TRAJECTORY OF FEDERAL GUN CRIMES.
...1170 (2017); United States v. Stitt, 139 S. Ct. 399 (2018); Stokeling v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 544 (2019); Quarles v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 1872 (2019); Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019); United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019); Shularv. United States, 140 S. Ct......
-
INTEREST-BASED INCORPORATION: STATUTORY REALISM EXPLORING FEDERALISM, DELEGATION, AND DEMOCRATIC DESIGN.
...government has no interest in local crime). (137) See infra notes 143-145 and accompanying text. (138) See Quarles v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 1872, 1876 (2019) ("The question here is how to define 'burglary' under [section] 924(e)."); United States v. Stitt, 139 S. Ct. 399, 403-04 (2018) ......