) The Supreme Court is considering whether the Constitution requires a jury trial and proof beyond a reasonable doubt to determine if a person’s criminal history qualifies them for an enhanced prison sentence.

The issue was raised by Indiana man Paul Erlinger, who received a 15-year prison sentence for unlawful possession of a firearm.

Although the charge was punishable by as many as 10 years in prison, Erlinger was sentenced under the Armed Criminal Career Act (ACCA), which allowed the judge to take into account three prior burglary convictions on the man’s record.

The ACCA mandates a 15-year minimum sentence and allows for a maximum sentence of life in prison for unlawful possession of a firearm if the alleged offender has three prior qualifying convictions committed on different occasions.

Erlinger argues three main points; first, Indiana’s definition of burglary deviates from that of federal law, and therefore can’t be sentenced under the ACCA. He also says the burglaries didn’t happen on separate occasions and that the jury, rather than a judge, should decide whether to enhance a sentence based on prior convictions.

The Supreme Court is expected to issue an opinion this summer.