United States v. Cesar Medina-Torres
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 26204
| 5th Cir. | 2012Background
- Medina-Torres, a Mexican citizen, was apprehended at a 2011 border checkpoint while illegally present in the United States.
- He previously was convicted in Florida in 2007 for grand theft of a motor vehicle under Fla. Stat. 812.014(1).
- He was removed from the United States in October 2007 following that conviction.
- In March 2011, Medina-Torres pled guilty to illegal reentry after deportation under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a)&(b); the PSR applied an eight-level enhancement for a prior aggravated felony.
- The district court sentenced him to 30 months’ imprisonment after applying the eight-level enhancement, with a three-level acceptance-of-responsibility reduction.
- On appeal, the panel granted rehearing, substituted a unanimous opinion, and vacated the sentence to remand for consideration of an alternate enhancement based on a different prior conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Florida 812.014(1) qualifies as a theft offense under 1101(a)(43)(G). | Government argues it can. | Medina-Torres contends the statute is divisible and does not necessarily require intent to deprive. | The statute is divisible; it does not categorically qualify as a generic theft offense; thus no aggravated-felony enhancement. |
| Whether the modified categorical approach can establish a qualifying subsection. | Government seeks narrowing to subsection (a). | Record does not show which subsection applied. | Modified categorical approach fails; record insufficient to tie to a qualifying subsection. |
| Whether the district court’s error was plain and whether it affected substantial rights. | Error warrants reversal due to lack of proper basis. | Error may be harmless given possible alternate grounds. | The error was plain and affected substantial rights; remand for resentencing on alternate basis is required. |
| Whether the government’s alternative enhancement based on the 2004 forgery conviction can support a higher sentence. | Government proposes aggregation to meet the one-year requirement. | Record does not support aggregation; no single sentence of at least one year. | Not properly documented or supported on appeal; remand to consider with adequate records. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burke v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 695 (5th Cir. 2007) (definition of generic theft offense; intent to deprive required)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (U.S. 1990) (generic meaning of theft offense used for categorization)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (U.S. 2005) (modified categorical approach permissible with certain documents)
- Gonzalez-Terrazas v. United States, 529 F.3d 293 (5th Cir. 2008) (modified categorical approach applied to disjunctive statutes)
- Jaggernauth v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 432 F.3d 1346 (11th Cir. 2005) (Florida 812.014(1) may be divisible; disjunctive subsections)
- Figueroa-Estrada v. United States, 416 F. App’x 377 (5th Cir. 2011) (Florida 812.014(1) does not qualify as theft offense under §1101(a)(43)(G) when not narrowed)
- Villegas, 404 F.3d 355 (5th Cir. 2005) (plain-error standard for misapplication of Guidelines)
- Vargas-Soto, 700 F.3d 180 (5th Cir. 2012) (record-supplementation and alternative ground for aggrav. felony)