United States v. Aaron Wikkerink
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 19583
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Defendant Aaron Wikkerink pleaded guilty to receipt of child pornography (18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)).
- Presentence report (PSR) relied on a prior Louisiana aggravated-incest conviction (molestation of his seven-year-old niece) to apply statutory enhancement under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(b)(1) (raising mandatory minimum to 15 years) and Guidelines enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.5(a).
- PSR produced a Guidelines range of 180–210 months (after acceptance reduction) but noted statutory mandatory minimum made range 180–210; the district court misstated the top of the Guidelines as 240 months at sentencing.
- The district court imposed a 360-month sentence (well above the PSR range) citing § 5K2.0(a)(3) or 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) because of the prior child-sex offense and the disturbing quantity/nature of images.
- On appeal, Wikkerink argued the Louisiana conviction did not qualify for the § 2252A(b)(1) or § 4B1.5(a) enhancements; the government conceded some error but argued no prejudice.
- Fifth Circuit held: § 2252A(b)(1) enhancement was proper (state offenses matched generic "sexual abuse"); § 4B1.5(a) enhancement was erroneous (state offenses broader than enumerated federal sex offenses), but the court affirmed the 360-month sentence after plain-error review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prior LA aggravated-incest conviction qualifies as a "prior conviction" under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(b)(1) | Wikkerink: conviction broader than "sexual abuse," so enhancement improper | Government: conviction involved sexual acts against a minor and is "sexual abuse" | Held: qualifies under § 2252A(b)(1); enhancement proper (elements align with generic sexual abuse) |
| Whether prior LA conviction is a "sex offense conviction" under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.5(a) | Wikkerink: Louisiana offenses broader than federal enumerated offenses, so do not qualify | Government: PSR treated it as qualifying; court relied on that | Held: error — Louisiana offenses broader than federal analogues; § 4B1.5(a) enhancement improper |
| Standard of review for challenge to Guidelines calculation | Wikkerink: seeks de novo review | Government: argues forfeiture; no timely specific objection below | Held: issue forfeited; reviewed for plain error (defendant failed to preserve) |
| Whether plain error requires reversal given district court imposed 360 months | Wikkerink: erroneous range likely affected sentence | Government: sentence well above any correct range; no prejudice shown | Held: although plain error occurred (error was clear and affected substantial rights), affirmance allowed because error did not seriously affect fairness/integrity/public reputation — district court would have imposed lengthy sentence for independent reasons; appellate court declined to correct sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (categorical approach for prior convictions)
- Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (modified categorical approach limits)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (documents permissible under modified categorical approach)
- Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (incorrect Guidelines range can show prejudice)
- Peugh v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2072 (district courts must begin analysis with Guidelines; deviations require explanation)
- United States v. Dickson, 632 F.3d 186 (upholding sentence despite erroneous Guidelines where district court based sentence on independent factors)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (plain-error framework for unpreserved errors)