Opinion ID: 602086
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Proof of Prior Felony Conviction.

Text: 11 Berumen-Blanco argues that the district court erred in sentencing him to a term of imprisonment and supervised release in excess of the statutory maximum for simple illegal reentry, 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that the existence of a prior felony conviction is a necessary element of an offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b), and that the government's failure to offer proof of this felony conviction at trial requires his resentencing. We review the legality of a sentence de novo. United States v. Hahn, 960 F.2d 903, 907 (9th Cir.1992). 12 This issue is controlled by our recent decision in United States v. Gonzalez-Medina, 976 F.2d 570 (9th Cir.1992). There, confronted with the exact issue raised here, we held that: 13 the existence of a prior felony conviction is a necessary element of an offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) and that the government's failure to prove this element at ... the defendants' trials requires us to vacate their sentences and remand for resentencing. 14 Id. at 572. Here, as in Gonzalez-Medina, the government not only elected not to put on any such evidence, but acquiesced in a jury instruction that only listed the three elements of section 1326(a) rather than the four elements of 1326(b). Id. at 573. 15 Gonzalez-Medina also forecloses the government's invited error argument. Berumen-Blanco moved to exclude evidence of prior crimes, and the government acquiesced. Berumen-Blanco proposed a jury instruction which listed only the § 1326(a) elements, not the additional § 1326(b) element, in which the government acquiesced. We are unable to distinguish these facts from those which Gonzales-Medina held not to waive or invite the error. Id. As such, 16 [t]he jur[y] only heard evidence regarding the defendant['s] alleged violation[ ] of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Accordingly, the defendant[ ] can only have been convicted of having violated section 1326(a). Because ... the sentence[ ] imposed exceed[s] the lawful maximum of twenty-four months under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) ... we must vacate the sentence[ ] imposed and remand for resentencing. 17 Id. 18 The conviction is AFFIRMED, but the sentence is VACATED and the case is REMANDED for resentencing. 1