Opinion ID: 3039495
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: application of the modified approach

Text: [7] If the statute criminalizes conduct that goes beyond that which would constitute a “crime of violence” under the generic definition, then we consider whether documentation or other judicially noticeable facts in the record indicate that Martinez-Martinez was convicted of the elements of the generically defined crime. See Shepard, 544 U.S. at 20-21. The only documentation before the district court in this case was the plea agreement entered into by Martinez-Martinez in the 2001 proceedings, the indictment, and the judgment of conviction. Those documents simply show that MartinezMartinez was charged, later pled guilty to, and was eventually sentenced for “knowingly discharg[ing] a firearm at a residential structure at 5977 Heather Drive, Willcox, Arizona,” in violation of section “13-1211” that was “[s]pecifically designated [as] a non-dangerous crime for the purpose of this plea agreement.” [8] Recitation of the statutory elements themselves is insufficient to demonstrate that a defendant’s prior conviction necessarily included the generic offense where the state statute in question has been found to be overly broad in relation to the generic definition for a “crime of violence.” See United States v. Lopez-Montanez, 421 F.3d 926, 931 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding that documents submitted are insufficient when they “simply restate[ ] the language of the statute” and “merely state that [the defendant] pled no contest to” the charged statute). Instead, under this modified categorical approach, judicially noticeable documents must “unequivocally establish[ ] that the defendant was convicted of the generically defined crime, even if the statute defining the crime is overly inclusive.” Id. (quoting United States v. Corona-Sanchez, 291 F.3d 1201, 1211 (9th Cir. 2002)(en banc)(quotations omitted)). Similarly, the fact that a street address is given for where Martinez18536 UNITED STATES v. MARTINEZ-MARTINEZ Martinez committed his crime in no way by itself unequivocally establishes that the structure in question was currently inhabited by someone (as opposed to being one that was capable of housing someone). Such an address simply indicates that the structure in question was located near or on a street. Looking at the description of the other offense MartinezMartinez was charged with in conjunction with section 131211 is similarly unavailing. Martinez-Martinez also pled guilty to “caus[ing] a substantial risk of imminent death to Graciela Garcia” in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes section 13-1201 on the same day he discharged a firearm. Although it is certainly reasonable to assume that the two crimes were related (and perhaps took place at the same time given that they occurred on the same day), nothing in the plea agreement itself ties the two together in such a manner. Martinez-Martinez could have committed the crimes at two different places on the same day, just as he could have committed them at the same place at the same time on the same day. If the plea agreement had noted the same address with respect to the discharge of the firearm crime in conjunction with the one for endangerment, then at least factual inferences would have started taking shape from which we could begin to accept such a factual proffer. The plea agreement, however, does not make such a connection. [9] Although the pre-sentence report’s recitation of the facts underlying Martinez-Martinez’s 2001 conviction clearly provides the nexus between the discharge of the firearm and the occupancy of the residence, the report is an improper source to consult. First, the exclusive source for the information was the police reports generated at the time of MartinezMartinez’s arrest back in 2001. The Supreme Court has rejected the naked consultation of police reports in performing a modified categorical approach. See Shepard, 544 U.S. at 2123; cf. United States v. Espinoza-Cano, 456 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2006) (allowing consideration of police report as part of modified categorical approach but only because the report UNITED STATES v. MARTINEZ-MARTINEZ 18537 was incorporated by reference into the criminal complaint underlying the prior conviction). Moreover, we have held that “a description of the facts underlying the conviction in a presentence report” is “ ‘insufficient evidence to establish that the defendant pled guilty to the elements of the generic definition of a crime when the statute of conviction is broader than the generic definition.’ ” Huerta-Guevara, 321 F.3d at 888 (quoting Corona-Sanchez, 291 F.3d at 1212). [10] Given that section 13-1211’s statutory elements include conduct ranging beyond that we have found to categorically demonstrate that the discharge of a firearm at a structure qualifies as a crime of violence, and because the judicially noticeable documents tendered by the government to the district court are insufficient to show unequivocally that Martinez-Martinez was convicted of the generically defined offense, the district court erred in enhancing MartinezMartinez’s sentence by sixteen-levels pursuant to USSG section 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). As a result, we need not reach Martinez-Martinez’s remaining arguments.