Source: http://ca10.washburnlaw.edu/cases/2005/10/05-3020.htm
Timestamp: 2019-01-22 18:37:39
Document Index: 8348616

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1326', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 4', '§ 2', '§ 4', '§ 2']

05-3020 -- U.S. v. Leos-Hernandez -- 10/21/2005
| Keyword | Case | Docket | Date: Filed / Added | (20232 bytes) (14420 bytes)
No. 05-3020
Defendant - Appellant. (D.C. No. 04-CR-10190-MLB)
Alfonso Leos-Hernandez pleaded guilty to a one-count indictment charging him with illegal reentry after deportation subsequent to conviction for an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b). As part of the plea agreement he waived all rights to appeal on any ground except (1) upward departures and (2) use of an allegedly time-barred prior conviction to enhance his sentence under United States Sentencing Guidelines (USSG) § 2L1.2(b). He specifically waived any right to have facts that might enhance his sentence determined by a jury, and agreed that the court would impose sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines after finding facts by a preponderance of the evidence.
On January 3, 2005, Mr. Leos-Hernandez was sentenced to 87 months' imprisonment. In imposing sentence the district court applied a 16-level enhancement to his base offense level because of a 1986 manslaughter conviction, which Mr. Leos-Hernandez admitted to as part of the plea agreement.
Counsel for Mr. Leos-Hernandez has filed an Anders brief stating the issues his client wishes to raise on appeal and why they have no merit. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). We agree with counsel that there are no meritorious issues to be raised on appeal, grant his motion to withdraw, and dismiss the appeal.
Mr. Leos-Hernandez desires to raise two issues on appeal: (1) whether his 1986 conviction qualified him for the 16-level enhancement under USSG § 2L1.2(b), and (2) whether remand for resentencing is required under United States v. Booker, 125 S.Ct. 738 (2005). Counsel believes that neither issue has any merit and has filed a motion to withdraw. The procedure for appointed counsel to withdraw on appeal is set out in Anders v. California:
Counsel is correct that the Sentencing Guidelines provide no time limit on the prior convictions that may be used to enhance a sentence under USSG § 2L1.2(b). The Application Notes specifically provide that "'[s]entence imposed' has the meaning given the term 'sentence of imprisonment' in Application Note 2 and subsection (b) of § 4A1.2 . . . without regard to the date of the conviction." USSG § 2L1.2 comment (n.1(B)(vii)) (emphasis added); see United States v. Stultz, 356 F.3d 261, 268 (2d Cir. 2004) ("The Sentencing Guidelines provide no time limit on the prior federal and state convictions that may be used to trigger a sentence enhancement."). Thus, the time limits imposed in USSG § 4A1.1 are inapplicable. See USSG § 2L1.2 comment (n.6) ("A conviction taken into account under subsection (b)(1) is not excluded from consideration of whether that conviction receives criminal history points pursuant to Chapter Four, Part A (Criminal History)."). The issue is therefore wholly frivolous.
Counsel is also correct that remand for resentencing is not required in light of Booker. First, Mr. Leos-Hernandez waived any right to appeal this issue. Second, he specifically agreed to be sentenced by the judge under the guidelines and waived his right to have a jury determine facts that might enhance his sentence. Therefore, this issue is also wholly frivolous.
In his supplemental brief Mr. Leos-Hernandez argues that use of his prior conviction to enhance his sentence was improper under Shepard v. United States, 125 S. Ct. 1254 (2005). But Shepard is inapplicable because he waived his right to have his sentence based on facts determined by the jury. Moreover, as discussed above, he admitted the facts necessary to impose the enhancement. Shepard applies only "in the absence of any waiver of rights by the defendant." Id. at 1262.
Finally, Mr. Leos-Hernandez suggests in his supplemental brief that his counsel coerced him into the plea agreement. Ineffectiveness claims should be raised on collateral review. United States v. Galloway, 56 F.3d 1239, 1240 (10th Cir. 1995) (en banc).
We GRANT counsel's motion for withdrawal and DISMISS this appeal.
URL: http://ca10.washburnlaw.edu/cases/2005/10/05-3020.htm.