## Facts

- Matthew Descamps was convicted in federal court of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition.
- The government sought an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) based on prior convictions, including a California burglary conviction under Cal. Penal Code § 459.
- California Penal Code § 459 defines burglary as entry into specified places with intent to commit larceny or any felony, without requiring “unlawful or unprivileged entry.”
- The district court treated Descamps’ prior convictions (including § 459 burglary) as ACCA predicates and imposed an enhanced sentence.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed, applying the modified categorical approach and consulting the plea colloquy to conclude the prior burglary matched “generic burglary.”

## Issues

1. Whether the modified categorical approach may be used when a prior conviction rests on an indivisible statute that is broader than the generic offense enumerated in ACCA.
2. Whether a conviction under Cal. Penal Code § 459 can qualify as “burglary” under ACCA when the statute lacks an element of unlawful or unprivileged entry.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit.
- The Court held that the modified categorical approach does not apply to statutes with a single, indivisible set of elements.
- Because § 459 is broader than generic burglary and is indivisible, a conviction under § 459 cannot qualify as ACCA “burglary.”
- The ACCA enhancement imposed on Descamps was therefore improper.

## Legal Principles

- ACCA predicate determinations generally use the categorical approach, comparing the elements of the statute of conviction to the elements of the generic offense.
- The modified categorical approach is limited to divisible statutes that list alternative elements; it permits consultation of a limited set of judicial records only to identify which alternative element formed the basis of conviction.
- Courts may not use plea colloquies or similar materials to find the defendant’s actual conduct when the statute is indivisible; doing so converts an elements inquiry into prohibited judicial factfinding.
- When a statute’s elements are broader than the generic offense and the statute is not divisible into alternative element-sets, the conviction does not qualify as an ACCA predicate.
- Limiting the inquiry to elements avoids practical and fairness problems and reduces Sixth Amendment concerns from judge-found facts increasing punishment.

## Conclusion

The Court held that sentencing courts may not apply the modified categorical approach to an overbroad, indivisible statute, and that California burglary under § 459—because it lacks an unlawful-entry element—cannot serve as “generic burglary” for ACCA enhancement purposes.


Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013)