Opinion ID: 779067
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Specific Intent to Enter Without Authorization

Text: 10 Specific intent is also an element of the crime of attempted reentry and consequently must be alleged in the indictment. See United States v. Pernillo-Fuentes, 252 F.3d 1030, 1032 (9th Cir.2001); Gracidas-Ulibarry, 231 F.3d at 1196. Leos's indictment failed to allege the required intent. It is true that this failure, if timely raised, is a fatal flaw requiring dismissal of the indictment. Pernillo-Fuentes, 252 F.3d at 1032. 11 Leos did not raise this deficiency, however, until appeal. While a claim of defective indictment can be raised at any time, United States v. James, 980 F.2d 1314, 1316 (9th Cir.1992), review of an untimely objection to the sufficiency of the indictment is limited to the plain error test of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b). United States v. Cotton, ___ U.S. ___, 122 S.Ct. 1781, 152 L.Ed.2d 860 (2002); United States v. Velasco-Medina, 305 F.3d 839 (9th Cir.2002). 12 Under the plain error standard, relief is not warranted unless: (1) there has been error; (2) the error is plain; and (3) the error affects substantial rights. Jones v. United States, 527 U.S. 373, 389, 119 S.Ct. 2090, 144 L.Ed.2d 370 (1999). Even then, the error must seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings before we can exercise our discretion to notice the error. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993). 13 Leos cannot meet the third condition. In order to affect his substantial rights, the error must have affected the outcome of the District Court proceedings. United States v. Lussier, 128 F.3d 1312, 1317 (9th Cir.1997). In other words, the error must be not only plain but also prejudicial. See Velasco-Medina, 305 F.3d at 846-47. 14 In Velasco-Medina, we applied the plain error test to a similarly defective indictment. Id. at 845-47. In that case, we held that the untimely objection to the indictment did not prejudice the defendant—even though the indictment was plainly defective. Id. at 846-47. We noted that when, as here, the indictment specifically refers to 8 U.S.C. § 1326, it places the defendant on notice of the charge against him and the specific intent necessary to support a conviction. Id. 15 Leos does not claim that he was in any way prejudiced in preparing and presenting his defense because of the indictment's failure to allege specific intent. He did not raise the insufficiency of his indictment until his reply brief (after the government's candid admission in its brief of the defect). We have previously observed that: a late challenge suggests a purely tactical motivation and is needlessly wasteful because pleading defects can usually be readily cured through a superseding indictment before trial. Additionally, the fact of the delay tends to negate the possibility of prejudice in the preparation of the defense, because one can expect that the challenge would have come earlier were there any real confusion about the elements of the crime charged. For all these reasons, indictments which are tardily challenged are liberally construed in favor of validity. 16 United States v. Lo, 231 F.3d 471, 481 (9th Cir.2000) (citations and internal quotations omitted). 17 Furthermore, Leos testified on cross examination that he knew that it was illegal to enter the United States, both because he had been deported before and because he was turned away at the border the day before his crossing. This evidence is sufficient to establish his guilt under a proper indictment, viz, one that alleges that he intended to enter the country without consent. 18 Even assuming, arguendo, that Leos would not have admitted that he knew it was illegal to reenter the country if the indictment had properly alleged specific intent, substantial evidence existed to permit the district court to nevertheless conclude that Leos possessed the requisite intent to reenter the United States without authorization. See Gracidas-Ulibarry, 231 F.3d at 1197-98 (holding that constitutional error of failing to instruct jury concerning specific intent for attempted reentry was harmless because the government offered undisputed testimony... that demonstrated [the alien's] conscious desire to enter the United States without first obtaining express consent.). The day before he was apprehended, Leos had been turned away at a border checkpoint because of expired documents. In addition, he had been formally deported only one month and one day before he was caught attempting to reenter, and he had received a warning letter notifying him of the consequences of reentering the United States without the Attorney General's permission. When confronted by border patrol, Leos admitted that he had recently been deported and was not a U.S. citizen. Finally, Leos admits that he purposely hid from border patrol immediately after he hopped over the border fence, crouching down and waiting for an opportunity to move undetected further into the U.S. In light of the overwhelming evidence demonstrating his intent to enter without consent, Leos's assertions on appeal that his substantial rights were violated is unpersuasive.