Source: http://ca10.washburnlaw.edu/cases/2000/11/00-1134.htm
Timestamp: 2018-11-19 02:52:25
Document Index: 45341477

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1326', '§ 2', '§ 1101', '§ 2', '§ 1326', '§ 1326', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 1101', '§ 2', '§ 1101', '§ 1101', '§ 1101', '§ 2']

00-1134 -- U.S. v. Martinez-Villalva -- 11/24/2000
| Keyword | Case | Docket | Date: Filed / Added | (24088 bytes) (22920 bytes)
RUBEN MARTINEZ-VILLALVA, a/k/a Ruben Martinez-Villalba, a/k/a Alfredo Martinez-Rodriguez, a/k/a Oscar Martinez-Villalba,
(D.C. No. 99-CR-296-B)
Michael G. Katz, Federal Public Defender, Warren R. Williamson, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellant.
Defendant pleaded guilty to and was convicted of one count of illegal reentry following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). The district court sentenced him to seventy-seven months' imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release. That sentence was in accord with the recommendation in the Presentence Investigation Report (PIR) and included a sixteen-level enhancement because defendant had a prior aggravated felony conviction. See United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A). Defendant objected to the PIR, arguing that he was not subject to the sixteen-level enhancement because his prior felony conviction was not an "aggravated felony" as defined at 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G). The district court disagreed.
On appeal, defendant makes the same argument.(1) He maintains that his conviction in Kansas state court was not an "aggravated felony," as that term is defined by federal law. Thus, he argues that the district court's sixteen-level enhancement to his base offense level was improper. His position is that the proper enhancement would have been a four-level increase applicable where a defendant was convicted of a felony other than an aggregated felony. See USSG § 2L1.2(b)(1)(B). In addition to the sentencing guideline argument, defendant filed a supplemental brief raising the question of the applicability of a recently decided Supreme Court case, Apprendi v. New Jersey, 120 S. Ct. 2348 (2000).(2) We address that supplemental issue first.
Almendarez-Torres held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2), which mandates an increased sentence for violation of § 1326(a) if the previous deportation was after commission of an aggravated felony, was not a separate element of the offense that must be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, but was, instead, merely a sentencing factor based on recidivism. Almendarez-Torres, 523 U.S. at 235. We are bound by that case to hold that the fact of defendant's prior felony conviction is not an element of the offense with which he was charged by indictment, but is, instead, a sentencing factor. See id. Consequently, the indictment in this case, which did not separately charge defendant with a prior aggravated felony conviction, did not violate defendant's constitutional rights. See id.
"We review the district court's interpretation and application of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo." United States v. Chavez-Valenzuela, 170 F.3d 1038, 1039 (10th Cir. 1999). Stated differently, how the guidelines apply to defendant's conviction for illegal reentry is a question of law that we review de novo. See United States v. Ramos-Garcia, 95 F.3d 369, 371 (5th Cir. 1996). Defendant's argument is that the district court erred in enhancing his sentence by sixteen levels under the guidelines on account of a prior aggravated felony conviction. This challenge is to the district court's application and interpretation of the guidelines, and, consequently, we review the district court's action de novo. See United States v. Lugo, 170 F.3d 996, 1006 (10th Cir. 1999) (reviewing de novo whether prior conviction was felony or misdemeanor under state law, in deciding whether defendant's prior conviction was an aggravated felony, and characterizing question as an interpretation of sentencing guidelines).(3)
The guidelines provide for a sixteen-level enhancement to the base offense level when the defendant was previously deported after conviction of an aggravated felony. USSG § 2L1.2(b)(1). The application notes following § 2L1.2(b)(1) state that "aggravated felony" is defined at 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43). USSG § 2L1.2(b)(1), comment. (n.1). Turning to the relevant portion of that statute, an "aggravated felony" includes "a theft offense . . . for which the term of imprisonment is at least one year." 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G). Further, subsection 48 of the statute states that "[a]ny reference to a term of imprisonment or a sentence with respect to an offense is deemed to include the period of incarceration or confinement ordered by a court of law regardless of any suspension of the imposition or execution of that imprisonment or sentence in whole or in part." Id. § 1101(a)(48)(B).
Based on this evidence, the district court held that the government had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that plaintiff had a prior felony conviction for which the term of imprisonment was at least one year. In reaching that conclusion, the district court held as a matter of law that the legal effect of the Kansas state court's Journal Entry was a suspended sentence of one to two years' confinement and two years of probation. Both parties agree that, if the Kansas court imposed a suspended sentence of at least one year's imprisonment followed by probation, the conviction would constitute an aggravated felony under federal law. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(48)(B); Chavez-Valenzuela, 170 F.3d at 1039; Appellant's Br. at 8; Appellee's Br. at 9. On the other hand, the parties agree that if the legal effect of the state court's sentence was an original sentence of probation, the conviction would not be an aggravated felony under federal law. See United States v. Guzman-Bera, 216 F.3d 1019, 1020 (11th Cir. 2000); United States v. Banda-Zamora, 178 F.3d 728, 730 (5th Cir. 1999); Appellant's Br. at 8; Appellee's Br. at 9-10.
We do not, however, even need to go that far. At the very least, we can say that the government did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the legal effect of the state court's action was a suspended term of imprisonment. From the Journal Entry alone, "it is not possible to discern with the required certainty whether the state court intended to assess a term of imprisonment and suspend imposition thereof, or to place [defendant] directly on probation." United States v. Herrera-Solorzano, 114 F.3d 48, 50 (5th Cir. 1997). Consequently, we hold that the government did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of at least one year. Thus, the government failed to carry its burden of establishing a conviction for an aggravated felony for purposes of enhancing defendant's sentence pursuant to USSG § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A). We REMAND this case to the district court for re-sentencing.
2. Defendant states that he raised this issue in a supplemental brief in this appeal in order to preserve it for further review by the Supreme Court, in light of the Court's recent decision in Apprendi. Appellant's Supp. Br. at 1, 2, 6.
3. The government cites an unpublished order and judgment from this court as authority for its position that the standard of review on this question is clear error. As stated in 10th Cir. R. 36.3(A), an order and judgment is not binding precedent. Further, 10th Cir. R. 36.3(B) states that citation to unpublished decisions is disfavored. However, subsection (1) of that rule provides for citation of an unpublished decision, but only if "it has persuasive value with respect to a material issue that has not been addressed in a published opinion." This court's published decision in Lugo applied a de novo standard of review to precisely the same issue (whether a prior conviction was a felony or misdemeanor under state law) that the unpublished case reviewed for clear error. Consequently, the government's citation to the unpublished decision, in light of this court's published authority, was contrary to 10th Cir. R. 36.3(B)(1).
URL: http://ca10.washburnlaw.edu/cases/2000/11/00-1134.htm.