Lockhart v. United States
United States Supreme Court
577 U.S. 347 (2016)

- Written by Eric Cervone, LLM
Facts
Avondale Lockhart (defendant) was convicted of possessing child pornography. Lockhart previously had been convicted of sexually assaulting his adult girlfriend. 18 U. S. C. § 2252(b)(2) stated that anyone who has been convicted of aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or abusive sexual conduct involving a minor shall be imprisoned for at least 10 years for a future conviction. The trial court found that the limiting phrase “involving a minor” applied only to the last category on the list. Thus, the trial court held that Lockhart’s prior sexual assault conviction fell within the purview of 18 U. S. C. § 2252(b)(2) and sentenced Lockhart to ten years in prison for his child pornography conviction. Lockhart challenged the court’s interpretation of that statute. The issue was whether the phrase “involving a minor” modified all items in the list of predicate crimes, or only the item that immediately preceded the phrase. Lockhart argued that the limiting phrase should be applied to each crime in the list. Thus, Lockhart argued, because his previous conviction did not involve a minor, he should not be subjected to the mandatory minimum sentence. The appeals court agreed with the trial court, holding that the phrase “involving a minor” modified only “abusive sexual conduct.” The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Sotomayor, J.)
Dissent (Kagan, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.