Court Rejects Challenge ACCA Sentence Based on Challenge to Plea Agreement's Factual Basis

In United States v. Short, -- F.4th -- (6th Cir. 2025), the Court of Appeals upheld the district court's finding of guilty and sentencing the defendant under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). Short was indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm. "The government then modified the indictment." Short, at page 2. The new indictment included allegations that on four separate occasions Short committed four separate crimes of violence.

 Short challenged his sentence under ACCA by arguing there was no factual basis to accept his plea. His argument relied on the joint factual basis presented to the district court. The joint factual basis did not mention any of his prior convictions for crimes of violence. However, the district court informed Short at his change of plea hearing that he faced the ACCA enhancement to his sentence. Under the ACCA enhancement, Short faced 15 years to life. Without it, he faced a maximum sentence of 10 years. Short acknowledged the ACCA enhancement and stood by his plea. 

At the time of the sentence, Sixth Circuit precedent permitted district courts to find separate occasions on its own. See, e.g., United States v. Williams, 39 F.4th 342, 351 (6th Cir. 2022). Not long after Short was sentenced, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that separate occasions must be found by a jury or admitted by the defendant. Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821, 834–35 (2024).

At sentencing, the district court had the new indictment alleging the four separate prior crimes of violence, the presentence investigation report chronicling Short's criminal history, and Short's acknowledgment of the enhanced penalties at the plea colloquy to form the factual basis.

The Court of Appeals applied United States v. McCreary–Redd, 475 F.3d 718, reiterating that the written statement of factual basis is not the only way to establish factual basis.