United States v. Alejandro Estrada Aplesa
690 F. App'x 630
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Alejandro Aplesa was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and possession with intent to distribute ≥500g cocaine; sentenced to the 60‑month statutory minimum.
- At charge conference the court proposed using the § 846 pattern conspiracy instruction but omitted the element stating the conspiracy’s object was to possess with intent to distribute (weight was handled elsewhere); neither party objected.
- After instructions the court asked parties whether to “stay with the pattern instruction”; both government and Aplesa requested the court keep it.
- The jury heard testimony from cooperating witness Emma Abarca‑Valdovinos (who admitted earlier lies), and DEA Officer Kelly testified that cooperating witnesses often initially lie to protect others.
- A recorded post‑arrest conversation between Aplesa and Abarca‑Valdovinos (admitted at trial) placed knowledge of and discussion about the cocaine directly on Aplesa.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether conspiracy instruction constructively amended indictment by omitting that the object was to possess with intent to distribute | Aplesa: omission removed essential element and broadened bases for conviction | Government: pattern instruction and verdict form properly handled weight; no objection at trial | Court: Waived by invited error—Aplesa agreed to “stay with the pattern instruction,” so review is precluded |
| Whether aiding‑and‑abetting instruction conflicted with Rosemond v. United States | Aplesa: instruction fails to require an act in furtherance and could allow conviction for mere association | Government: Rosemond clarifies §924(c) only; Eleventh Circuit precedent already requires an act plus intent | Court: No plain error; instruction consistent with Circuit law and adequately required willful participation |
| Whether testimony by DEA officer and prosecutorial comment impermissibly vouched for cooperating witness | Aplesa: Kelly’s testimony and rebuttal bolstered Abarca‑Valdovinos’s credibility and invaded jury province, affecting fairness | Government: Testimony explained common witness behavior; brief reference in rebuttal did not prejudice outcome | Court: Officer’s testimony was improper bolstering but harmless error given other strong evidence (recording, transcript, defendant’s testimony) |
| Whether district court erred in denying minor‑role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 | Aplesa: he played a minor role and qualified for a 2‑level reduction | Government: district court’s factual finding that he was not minor role stands | Court: Declined to address merits—any Guidelines error harmless because defendant received statutory minimum sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Rosemond v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1240 (2014) (clarifies aiding‑and‑abetting requirements in § 924(c) context and requires advance knowledge to make an accomplice’s decision meaningful)
- United States v. Felts, 579 F.3d 1341 (11th Cir. 2009) (standard for reviewing jury instructions)
- United States v. Brantley, 733 F.2d 1429 (11th Cir. 1984) (aiding‑and‑abetting requires an act contributing to the crime and intent to aid its commission)
- Snowden v. Singletary, 135 F.3d 732 (11th Cir. 1998) (expert testimony bolstering victim credibility can violate due process)
- United States v. Turner, 474 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir. 2007) (plain‑error review for unpreserved evidentiary objections)