United States v. Aguilar-Diaz
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 24576
| 6th Cir. | 2010Background
- Aguilar-Diaz pled guilty to illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
- Base offense level is 8; +4 for a 2003 Ohio forgery/records-tampering conviction; −2 for acceptance of responsibility, total level 10.
- Two criminal history points from the forgery sentence place him in criminal history category II.
- Advisory guidelines range calculated as 8–14 months; district court sentenced 11 months, within range with no departure.
- Aguilar-Diaz argued the Ohio forgery conviction is void and should not be counted under collateral attack.
- District court treated the challenge as impermissible collateral attack under Custis and related Sixth Circuit precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a void Ohio conviction can be used for sentencing under the guidelines | Aguilar-Diaz asserts the forgery conviction is void and cannot be used for sentencing. | Aguilar-Diaz contends the void status merits excluding the conviction from calculations. | Collateral attack barred; sentencing proper despite potential voidness. |
| Whether Custis/Lalonde preclude non-statutory collateral attacks at sentencing | Custis allows collateral attack on state convictions used for sentencing when based on right to counsel. | Custis extends to non-statutory grounds beyond right to counsel; state conviction cannot be challenged here. | Precluded under Lalonde; state conviction properly used for sentencing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Custis v. United States, 511 U.S. 485 (1994) (collateral attack limits at sentencing unless based on counsel rights or statute)
- United States v. Bonds, 68 F.3d 80 (6th Cir. 1995) (Custis-based limits apply to guideline-enhancement contexts)
- Lalonde v. United States, 509 F.3d 750 (6th Cir. 2007) (Custis precludes non-counsel-right collateral attacks at sentencing)
- Daniels v. United States, 532 U.S. 374 (2001) (rare channels of review doctrine; not extending collateral grounds here)
- State v. Beasley, 471 N.E.2d 774 (Ohio 1984) (a sentence that disregards mandatory statutory requirements can be void)
- State v. Jordan, 817 N.E.2d 864 (Ohio 2004) (post-release control notice mandatory; deficiencies render sentence void)
- State v. Simpkins, 884 N.E.2d 568 (Ohio 2008) (void sentence where post-release control not properly imposed; remand or attachment of post-release control as appropriate)
- State v. Singleton, 920 N.E.2d 964 (Ohio 2009) (void sentence for lack of proper post-release control precludes enforcement of control)
- State v. Hernandez, 844 N.E.2d 301 (Ohio 2006) (post-release control violations not properly imposed can affect subsequent penalties)
- United States v. Beets, no official reporter cited (no year) (not included due to lack of official reporter citation)