Opinion ID: 172719
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Treatment of Prior Convictions

Text: Medina-Rodriguez claims the district court violated his Sixth Amendment rights by treating his prior conviction for arson as a sentencing factor rather than an element of the offense. He did not raise this constitutional challenge before the district court and thus, our review is for plain error. See Trujillo-Terrazas, 405 F.3d at 817. The district court did not err because Medina-Rodriguez’s argument is foreclosed by United States Supreme Court and Tenth Circuit precedent. In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, the Supreme Court considered whether 8 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2), which increases the maximum penalty for unlawful reentry upon a finding that the alien had previously been convicted of an aggravated felony, constitutes a separate crime that had to be charged in the indictment. 523 U.S. 224 (1998). The Court held “neither the statute nor the Constitution require the Government to charge . . . an earlier conviction in the indictment.” Id. at 226-27. The Court reaffirmed this holding in Jones v. United States, stating Almendarez-Torres “stands for the proposition that not every fact expanding a penalty range must be stated in a felony indictment, the precise holding being that recidivism increasing the maximum penalty need not be so charged.” 526 U.S. 227, 248 (1999). Medina-Rodriguez argues subsequent Supreme Court cases “have cast some doubt on the continued validity of Almendarez-Torres.” (Appellant’s Br. at 13.) He is correct. See, e.g., Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 27 (2005) (Thomas, J., concurring) (“Almendarez-Torres . . . has been eroded by this Court’s subsequent Sixth Amendment jurisprudence, and a majority of the Court now recognizes that Almendarez-Torres was wrongly decided.”). But that does not compel a decision in his favor. As we explained in United States v. Moore: “Although the Court may overrule Almendarez-Torrres at some point in the future, it has not done so, we will not presume to do so for the Court, and we are bound by existing precedent to hold that the Almendarez-Torres exception . . . remains good law.” 401 F.3d 1220, 1224 (10th Cir. 2005). AFFIRMED. Entered by the Court: Terrence L. O’Brien