An 'occasion' to reconsider policies leading to mass incarceration

Those unfamiliar with criminal court proceedings might be surprised to learn that a single occurrence -- and even a single act -- can result in convictions for multiple offenses. Yet that outcome is remarkably commonplace. When offenses are prosecuted that way, it is known as "stacking" charges. Sometimes multiple charges are required for good reason; other times it leads to injustices.

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with an issue that could provide a roadmap for limiting the excesses of creatively stacking criminal charges. Wooden v. United States, 2022 DJDAR 2273 (March 7, 2022).

In Wooden, the court was asked whether burglary of different storage units on a single night, in a single facility, constituted crimes on different "occasions" within the meaning of the federal Armed Career Criminal Act. The court unanimously answered "no." (Justice Neil Gorsuch concurred in the outcome, but unlike the rest of the justices, did not join the court's opinion.)

The Supreme Court held that the ordinary meaning of the word "occasion" is "essentially an episode or event" and does not reach a series of crimes where each offense occurred "one-after-another-after-another." It reached this conclusion with reference to colorful hypotheticals ranging from barroom brawls to wedding conga lines.

In 1988, Congress amended the ACCA to, "insure that its rigorous sentencing provisions apply only as intended in cases meriting such strict punishment." But prosecutors often use charges under the ACCA to impose harsh mandatory minimums. In Wooden, for example, the ACCA charge was the difference between a recommended 21- to 27-month sentence and a mandatory minimum of 13 years or longer. The court explained that the requirement that prior convictions all take place on different "occasions" was directed at limiting the impacts of sentencing associated with multiple charges arising from a single episode or event.

The decision raises a number of issues relevant to the administration of criminal justice in California. First, in a footnote, the Wooden court noted that it was not addressing whether a jury was required to find the facts necessary to determine if prior offenses occurred on separate occasions. The California Supreme Court has addressed similar issues related to the administration of the death penalty (People v. McDaniel, 12 Cal. 5th 97, 158 (2021)) and other sentencing provisions in California that would require a jury to make a determination.

The broader issue -- application the ACCA's "rigorous sentencing provisions" -- also applies to many of California's sentencing provisions. As with the ACCA, California prosecutors are able to stack charges that contain mandatory minimum sentences. Such sentences necessarily place sentencing power with the prosecutor rather than the judge. Without a judicial- or jury-based check on that power, strict punishments can apply contrary to the demands of justice.

There is a growing tide of opposition against this practice. Recently enacted Senate Bill 81, for example, requires judges to dismiss sentencing enhancements where the interests of justice would be better served by doing so. And judges are required to give "great weight" to certain circumstances that weigh in favor of striking enhancements, including the stacking of sentencing enhancements and enhancements in cases with lengthy prison sentences. In the context of low-level drug offenses, the California Legislature has eliminated the application of mandatory minimum sentences. But these are only judicial solutions.

Conscientious prosecutors could do more. They should adopt policies for not charging multiple offenses arising out of the same transaction or occurrence absent compelling circumstances to do so. Undoubtedly, there will be times when the defendant's culpability and the harm caused call for more than a single charge. But requiring a strong justification for stacking charges would be another step towards limiting the worst excesses of criminal law in California. The U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Wooden presents them with an "occasion" to reconsider their policies and practices that have made California a leader in mass incarceration. 

John authored a brief in Wooden v. United States in support of the petitioner. The views expressed here are his own.