United States v. Diaz
838 F.3d 968
9th Cir.2016Background
- Jesse Vasquez, a mid-level gang member, was convicted in federal court (2009) of drug offenses and sentenced in 2010 to mandatory life under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) based on two prior California felony drug convictions.
- One prior predicate was a 1996 conviction under Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11350(a) for possession, which had become final well before the federal offense.
- In 2014 California enacted Proposition 47, which reclassified certain past felonies as misdemeanors and permitted resentencing through a recall procedure (Cal. Penal Code § 1170.18).
- In February 2015 Vasquez successfully petitioned a California court to recall and resentence his 1996 felony as a misdemeanor under Proposition 47.
- Vasquez argued that, because the state reclassified his 1996 conviction, it no longer qualified as a prior felony for § 841 and his federal life enhancement should be invalidated.
- The Ninth Circuit considered whether a state’s post-conviction reclassification affects the historical fact required by § 841 that the defendant committed the federal offense after two prior felony drug convictions had become final.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a state’s post-conviction reclassification of a prior felony to a misdemeanor under Prop 47 negates that prior felony for § 841 enhancement | Vasquez: Prop 47 reclassification means the 1996 conviction is no longer a felony and thus cannot serve as a predicate | Government: Federal law controls; the historical fact of a prior final felony conviction is what matters; later state relief does not undo that fact | The court held Proposition 47 does not change the historical fact that Vasquez had two prior felony drug convictions when he committed the federal offense; enhancement stands |
| Whether federal courts should treat state post-conviction dismissals/expungements/reclassifications retroactively for § 841 | Vasquez: California’s retroactive application should control and eliminate the predicate | Government: Federal interpretation determines qualification; only state action affecting the conviction’s lawfulness (e.g., actual innocence or illegality) can remove predicate effect | The court held federal law governs and such post-conviction changes generally do not negate predicates absent a defect in the original conviction’s lawfulness |
| Whether § 841 requires consulting the law at time of the prior conviction or current state law | Vasquez: Current state law after Prop 47 should be considered | Government: § 841 is backward-looking; examine law as of the time the conviction became final | Court held § 841 asks a backward-looking question; answer rests on the law as of the time the prior convictions became final |
| Whether California’s statutory language or retroactivity alters federal sentencing outcomes | Vasquez: Cal. Penal Code § 1170.18(k) and retroactive mechanisms strip felony status for all purposes | Government: Even if state gives retroactive effect, federal law need not follow; § 1170.18(n) preserves finality and does not compel federal change | Court held state statute does not bind federal sentencing; federal uniformity and precedent control |
Key Cases Cited
- McNeill v. United States, 563 U.S. 816 (2011) (ACCA inquiry is backward-looking; state-law changes after conviction do not negate prior offense for federal enhancement)
- United States v. Norbury, 492 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir. 2007) (state dismissal/expungement generally does not affect federal § 841 predicate unless original conviction was unlawful)
- United States v. Dyke, 718 F.3d 1282 (10th Cir. 2013) (state post-conviction relief does not alter the historical fact of a prior final conviction for § 841)
- United States v. Bergéman, 592 F.2d 533 (9th Cir. 1979) (state reclassification cannot rewrite history for federal sentencing purposes)
- Dickerson v. New Banner Institute, Inc., 460 U.S. 103 (1983) (federal law governs the meaning of prior convictions to ensure national uniformity)
- United States v. Salazar-Mojica, 634 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir. 2011) (later reduction of a state felony to misdemeanor does not necessarily remove predicate effect for federal sentencing)