United States v. Eddie Mendoza
689 F. App'x 280
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Eddie Mendoza pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute heroin and was sentenced to 151 months.
- After the plea but before sentencing acceptance, Mendoza moved to withdraw his guilty plea; the district court denied the motion.
- Mendoza appealed denial of plea-withdrawal and also challenged application of the career-offender enhancement based on a 2009 Texas § 481.112 conviction.
- While the appeal was pending, this Court decided United States v. Hinkle, holding that Texas § 481.112 delivery convictions are not "controlled substance offenses" under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1.
- Mendoza argued Hinkle required that his 2009 conviction not be used as a career-offender predicate, which would alter his guidelines range by 133 months.
- The panel affirmed Mendoza’s conviction, found plain error in applying the career-offender enhancement, vacated the sentence, and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court abused discretion in denying motion to withdraw guilty plea | Mendoza: should be allowed to withdraw plea (asserted reasons included challenges to predicate offense) | Government: denial proper under Carr factors; no abuse of discretion | Denial not an abuse of discretion; conviction affirmed |
| Whether the 2009 Tex. Health & Safety § 481.112 conviction qualifies as a § 4B1.1 controlled-substance predicate | Mendoza: after Hinkle, § 481.112 conviction is not a § 4B1.1 predicate | Government: used the 2009 conviction as predicate for career-offender enhancement | Court: Hinkle makes using § 481.112 as a § 4B1.1 predicate clear error affecting substantial rights; plain error found |
| Whether plain-error review permits correction and resentencing | Mendoza: error is clear, affected substantial rights due to a 133-month guidelines disparity | Government: argued no reversible error or harmless | Court: exercised discretion to correct error and remanded for resentencing |
| Remedy: conviction and sentence status | Mendoza: sought relief from enhancement and resentencing | Government: sought affirmation of sentence | Court: affirmed conviction, vacated sentence, remanded for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Arami, 536 F.3d 479 (5th Cir.) (rule on plea-withdrawal timing and Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d))
- United States v. Powell, 354 F.3d 362 (5th Cir.) (district court may permit plea withdrawal for fair and just reason)
- United States v. Carr, 740 F.2d 339 (5th Cir.) (seven-factor Carr test for plea-withdrawal motions)
- United States v. Hinkle, 832 F.3d 569 (5th Cir.) (Texas § 481.112 delivery conviction not a § 4B1.1 controlled-substance offense)
- United States v. Medina-Anincacio, 325 F.3d 638 (5th Cir.) (plain-error standard for preserved/forfeited sentencing claims)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (U.S.) (plain-error framework and remedy discretion)
- Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (U.S.) (guidelines-range errors affect substantial rights)
- Henderson v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1121 (U.S.) (clarifying plain-error review standards)
- United States v. Martinez-Rodriguez, 821 F.3d 659 (5th Cir.) (application of plain-error remedy and resentencing guidance)