Deal v. United States, , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a first-time offender could accrue multiple convictions and trigger penalties "[i]n the case of his second or subsequent conviction" under the Armed Career Criminal Act, specifically 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1), a provision of the Armed Career Criminal Act. The court interpreted the statute in favor of the state without applying the rule of lenity. Because of this case, prosecutors designed cases to trigger long sentences for first-time offenders with multiple mandatory minimums applied.
Background Legal background In 1984, Congress passed the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA).98 Stat. 2185 As of 1990, § 924(c) of the ACCA read as follows:
Factual background On September 14, 1990, Deal was charged by superseding indictment in the Northern District of Texas with thirteen crimes. Six counts charged Deal with committing six separate bank robberies:
In each bank robbery, Deal used a firearm. Counts 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 charged Deal with using and possessing a firearm during or in relation to the bank robberies charged in Counts 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11, respectively. Count 13 charged Deal with being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
The trial began on January 22, 1991. The following day, Deal was found guilty on all thirteen counts of the superseding indictment. Sentencing took place on April 12, 1991. At sentencing, an issue arose regarding how to construe ACCA's reference to a defendant's "second or subsequent" § 924(c) conviction. The probation office considered Deal's five convictions on Counts 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 to be "second or subsequent" convictions for the purposes of ACCA, despite their arising from the same indictment as Count 2, which resulted in Deal's first § 924(c) conviction. Over Deal's objection, the sentencing court adopted the recommendation of the probation office.
For his bank robbery convictions, Deal was ultimately sentenced to 14 years in prison. For his § 922(g)(1) conviction, he was sentenced to 10 years in prison, to run concurrently with his bank robbery sentences, for a subtotal of 14 years. For his first § 924(c) conviction (Count 2), he was sentenced to 5 years to run consecutively to all prior sentences, for a subtotal of 19 years. For the five remaining § 924(c) convictions (even-numbered Counts 4-12), he was sentenced to 20 years each, to run consecutively to each other (i.e., 100 years), and consecutive to all prior sentences, for a grand total of 119 years in prison. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed on March 5, 1992.United States v. Deal, 954 F.2d 262 (5th Cir. 1992).
Supreme Court On May 7, 1992, Deal petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. On October 5, 1992, the Court granted review. Oral arguments were heard on March 1, 1993. Dola J. Young argued the case on behalf of Deal. Miguel A. Estrada argued the case on behalf of the United States. The Court's opinions were issued on May 17, 1993.Deal v. United States, 508 U.S. 129, 130.
Justice Scalia authored the majority opinion, in which Justices Rehnquist, White, Kennedy, Souter, and Thomas joined, in which the judgment of the Fifth Circuit was affirmed. The Court held that § 924(c)(1)'s reference to a "conviction" referred to the jury's finding of guilt, rather than the time at which a judgment of conviction was entered against Deal.Deal, 508 U.S., at 130-137.
Justice Stevens authored a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Blackmun and O'Connor joined. The dissent concluded that "second or subsequent conviction" referred to a conviction "for an offense committed after an earlier conviction has become final." Alternatively, the dissent concluded that the rule of lenity counseled against the majority's reading.Deal, 508 U.S., at 137-146.
Subsequent events In 1998, Congress amended 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1) by, among other things, increasing the minimum sentence for a second or subsequent conviction to 25 years under 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(C) in the newly amended version of the statute.Pub. L. No. 105-386, 112 Stat. 3469.
On December 21, 2018, President Donald Trump signed into law the First Step Act, a bipartisan criminal justice bill.Pub. L. 115–391, 132 Stat. 5194. Section 403 of the First Step Act was enacted to overrule Deal v. United States, and prospectively eliminate § 924(c)'s "stacking" effect as to first-time offenders:Barry, Matthew N. "Stacked against Defendants: Retroactivity, Vacatur, and the First Step Act in Hewitt v. United States." Duke J. Const. L. & Pub. Pol'y Sidebar 20 (2025): 23.
On February 25, 2019, Deal filed a motion in the Supreme Court for leave to file a petition for rehearing in light of the First Step Act's changes to sentencing under § 924(c). On March 25, the motion was denied. References