United States v. Daniel Espinoza
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 19212
| 5th Cir. | 2013Background
- Espinoza pleaded guilty to felon in possession of a firearm and acknowledged three prior felony convictions, triggering potential ACCA enhancement.
- The district court applied the ACCA, yielding a 15-year mandatory minimum sentence, and Espinoza appealed challenging one prior conviction (felony assault involving family violence) as a violent felony.
- The district court relied on evidence beyond the indictment and judgment to conclude the §22.01 conviction was intentional and violent.
- Espinoza argued the judgment did not specify mens rea and urged a least-culpable-means assumption that the offense could be recklessly committed, which would not qualify as a violent felony.
- The court on appeal engaged in a Shepherd-based review of available judicial documents to ascertain mens rea and concluded the §22.01 conviction fits the ACCA residual-clause violent-felony standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Tex. Penal Code § 22.01 recklessly causing bodily injury qualify as a violent felony under the ACCA residual clause? | Espinoza argues recklessness cannot satisfy Begay’s purposeful, violent standard. | United States contends the statute resembles burglary and poses substantial risk, fitting the residual clause. | Yes; §22.01 recklessly causing bodily injury qualifies as a violent felony under the ACCA. |
| What mens rea should be attributed to Espinoza's §22.01 conviction when the documents are ambiguous? | Espinoza asserts the indictment and judgment do not establish beyond recklessness. | Government relies on judicial confession and plea to show intentional/knowing conduct. | Apply least-culpable-means approach; assume recklessness in the absence of conclusive evidence to the contrary. |
| What framework applies to evaluating ACCA residual-clause violations in light of Begay and Sykes? | Begay requires purposeful, violent and aggressive conduct; reckless acts should not qualify. | Sykes allows risk-based analysis; Begay guides analysis of strict liability or recklessness. | Begay and Sykes guide analysis; reckless assault can elevate to a violent felony under the residual clause. |
Key Cases Cited
- Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (U.S. 2008) (limits residual-clause reach to purposeful, violent, and aggressive conduct)
- Sykes v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2267 (S. Ct. 2011) (traces Begay's reasoning to risk analysis for recklessness/strict-liability crimes)
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (U.S. 2013) (discusses ACCA classifications and categorical approach)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (U.S. 1990) (categorical approach for determining violent felonies)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (U.S. 2005) (permissible sources for determining prior conduct in ACCA context)
- Garza-Lopez v. United States, 410 F.3d 268 (5th Cir. 2005) (Shepard documents admissible for determining violent felony status)
- United States v. Anderson, 559 F.3d 348 (5th Cir. 2009) (reckless conduct can fit with enumerated offenses for sentencing guidelines)
- United States v. Houston, 364 F.3d 243 (5th Cir. 2004) (least-culpable conduct assumed when indictment silent on mens rea)