## Facts

- Hugo Roman Almendarez-Torres, a previously deported noncitizen, was found in the United States after reentering without the Attorney General’s permission.
- He was indicted under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 for unlawful reentry after deportation; the indictment did not allege prior aggravated felony convictions.
- At his guilty plea hearing, he admitted he had been deported, unlawfully returned, and that his prior deportation occurred after convictions for aggravated felonies.
- Under § 1326(a), unlawful reentry carried a maximum sentence of two years; § 1326(b)(2) authorized up to twenty years if the deportation followed an aggravated felony conviction.
- At sentencing, Almendarez-Torres argued that the omission of the prior convictions from the indictment limited the court to the two-year maximum in § 1326(a).
- The district court rejected the argument and sentenced him to 85 months’ imprisonment under § 1326(b)(2) and the Sentencing Guidelines.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed, treating § 1326(b)(2) as a penalty provision rather than a separate offense.

## Issues

1. Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) creates a separate aggravated offense or merely authorizes an enhanced penalty for unlawful reentry.
2. Whether the fact of a prior aggravated felony conviction that increases the statutory maximum must be charged in the indictment and proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit.
- The Court held that § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision authorizing increased punishment for recidivism and does not define a separate crime.
- Because prior convictions were treated as sentencing factors, the government was not required by the statute or the Constitution to allege the prior aggravated felony convictions in the indictment.
- The Court concluded that the fact of a defendant’s prior conviction is not subject to the Sixth Amendment jury-trial requirement.

## Legal Principles

- An indictment must allege each element of the charged offense, but it need not allege facts relevant only to sentencing.
- Congress may, within constitutional limits, designate certain facts as sentencing factors rather than offense elements.
- Recidivism (the fact of a prior conviction) is a traditional sentencing factor that may be found by the judge.
- A statutory provision increasing the maximum penalty based on prior convictions may be construed as a sentencing enhancement when text, structure, and legislative history indicate that intent.

## Conclusion

The Court held that § 1326(b)(2) functions as a sentencing enhancement based on prior aggravated felony convictions, so the prior-conviction fact need not be charged in the indictment or submitted to a jury, and may be found by the sentencing judge.


Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998)