Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338

Background

Molina-Martinez pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after deportation following an aggravated felony conviction; Probation calculated a Guidelines range of 77–96 months.
Probation and defense recommended 77 months (low end); Government asked for 96 months (high end); District Court adopted the presentence report and sentenced to 77 months without further explanation.
After appeal briefing, Molina‑Martinez raised for the first time that the criminal‑history calculation was wrong (multiple same‑day sentences counted separately), which would have produced a correct Guidelines range of 70–87 months.
The Fifth Circuit agreed there was a Guidelines error but applied a rule requiring "additional evidence" to show prejudice when the sentence imposed also fell within the correct range; it denied plain‑error relief.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve whether an unpreserved Guidelines miscalculation itself can establish the "reasonable probability" of a different outcome required to show prejudice under Rule 52(b).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an unpreserved erroneous Guidelines range can alone show prejudice under Rule 52(b)	Molina‑Martinez: application of a higher, incorrect Guidelines range — and his receipt of the low‑end sentence within that range — establishes a reasonable probability of a different outcome	U.S.: defendant must produce "additional evidence" beyond the fact of overlap; otherwise Government would have to prove harmlessness for every unpreserved Guidelines error	The Court: No categorical "additional evidence" rule; in the ordinary case the application of an incorrect, higher Guidelines range can suffice to show a reasonable probability of a different outcome
Whether the Fifth Circuit’s categorical rule is consistent with Rule 52(b) and Olano	Molina‑Martinez: Olano does not support a special presumption; the Guidelines’ centrality means the miscalculation often affects outcomes	U.S.: preserving a difference between Rule 52(a) and 52(b) requires the Government not bear burden of showing harmlessness on every forfeited error	The Court: Olano/Rule 52(b) do not allow a rigid additional‑evidence requirement; burden of persuasion on prejudice remains with defendant, but reliance on the erroneous range often suffices
Whether remanding for resentencing will create unmanageable burdens	Molina‑Martinez: resentencing is an appropriate remedy where prejudice shown; appellate discretion limits remands	U.S.: allowing reliance on the erroneous range will overwhelm courts with resentencings	The Court: concern overstated; most circuits follow similar approach and remands for resentencing are infrequent and less costly than retrial
What showing remains available to Government to defend sentence on appeal	Molina‑Martinez: not directly argued here — defendant needs only reasonable probability showing	U.S.: Government can point to record evidence (judge's statements, other factors) to show no reasonable probability of a different sentence	The Court: Government may rebut by pointing to parts of the record showing the judge would have imposed the same sentence regardless of range

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (framework for plain‑error review under Rule 52(b))
United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (2004) (defendant must show reasonable probability that, but for error, outcome would differ)
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (Guidelines are advisory but must be consulted and considered)
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (within‑Guidelines sentences may require less extensive explanation)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (Guidelines as the starting point and treatment of departures/variances)
United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55 (2002) (appellate courts should consider record evidence to rebut claims of prejudice)