Juan Martinez v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III
893 F.3d 1067
| 8th Cir. | 2018Background
- Petitioner Juan Lemus Martinez, a Mexican national and lawful permanent resident, pleaded guilty in Missouri (2015) to possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 195.211.1.
- DHS initiated removal proceedings asserting (1) conviction of a state controlled-substance offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) and (2) conviction of an aggravated felony (illicit trafficking in a controlled substance) under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) and § 1101(a)(43)(B).
- Federal removal offenses reference the federal drug schedules in 21 U.S.C. § 802; some drugs listed in Missouri schedules (e.g., salvia, ephedrine) do not appear on the federal schedules.
- The Board concluded § 195.211 is divisible because the identity of the controlled substance is an element; applying the modified categorical approach, Lemus Martinez’s record shows conviction for methamphetamine, which is a federally scheduled drug.
- Lemus Martinez argued the Missouri statute is indivisible (drug identity is a means, not an element) and thus overbroad vis‑à‑vis the federal definitions; the Eighth Circuit reviewed the Board’s legal determination de novo.
- The court relied on Missouri Court of Appeals decisions and the approved jury instruction, concluding state precedent (Salmons and Harris) treats the specific drug as an element, so the statute is divisible and his methamphetamine conviction supports removal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mo. Rev. Stat. § 195.211 is divisible by the specific controlled substance | Lemus: statute is indivisible; listed drugs are alternative means, so offense overbroad | Government: identity of drug is an element, making the statute divisible | Court: Divisible — Missouri decisions treat drug identity as an element |
| Whether the modified categorical approach can be used to identify the drug of conviction | Lemus: no because statute indivisible; modified categorical approach inapplicable | Government: statute divisible so modified categorical approach applies | Court: Modified categorical approach applies; review of record shows methamphetamine conviction |
| Whether conviction qualifies as a state “controlled substance” offense under federal law | Lemus: Missouri statute sweeps in non‑federal drugs, so conviction might not match federal definition | Government: record shows methamphetamine, which is federally scheduled | Court: Conviction for methamphetamine (Schedule III) matches federal controlled‑substance definition; removable |
| Whether conviction constitutes an aggravated felony (illicit trafficking) | Lemus: same overbreadth concern; statute could criminalize non‑federal drugs | Government: trafficking methamphetamine is illicit trafficking under federal definition | Court: Yes; trafficking methamphetamine is an aggravated felony under federal law |
Key Cases Cited
- Mellouli v. Lynch, 135 S. Ct. 1980 (2015) (categorical approach governs comparison of state offense to federal removable offenses)
- Moncrieffe v. Holder, 569 U.S. 184 (2013) (categorical approach and assumptions about minimum conduct)
- Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013) (divisible statutes permit modified categorical approach)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (distinguishing elements from means in divisible statutes)
- Salmons v. State, 16 S.W.3d 635 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000) (Missouri treats identity of controlled substance as an element; no double jeopardy for separate drug prosecutions)
- State v. Harris, 153 S.W.3d 4 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005) (possession with intent to distribute each enumerated schedule drug is a separate offense)