United States v. Espinal
634 F.3d 655
2d Cir.2011Background
- Laiz pled guilty in the EDNY to possession with intent to distribute cocaine and conspiracy; sentence principal term twenty years.
- Laiz challenges the plea as involuntary due to immigration-consequence misstatements at the plea colloquy.
- Prosecutor later acknowledged error about deportation, but Laiz did not respond or seek withdrawal; Rule 11 issue raised on appeal as plain error.
- Prior felony information under 21 U.S.C. § 851 alleged a 1993 Massachusetts narcotics conviction; enhanced the sentence from 10 to 20 years.
- During sentencing, the magistrate court advised of the information but did not ask Laiz to affirm/deny the prior conviction, and government-produced documents lacked clear linkage to Laiz; uncertainty in the record.
- Court affirms conviction but vacates and remands the sentence for proper § 851 procedures and resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the guilty plea involuntary due to immigration-consequences misstatement? | Laiz | Laiz | Plea voluntary; no plain error to vacate conviction |
| Did the government prove the prior § 851 conviction beyond a reasonable doubt? | Laiz | Laiz | Remanded for proper § 851 procedures; not decided on sufficiency writ |
| Were the § 851 procedures followed sufficiently to support the enhanced sentence? | Laiz | Laiz | Procedural defects not harmless; remand for proper notice, written response, and live hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Vaval, 404 F.3d 144 (2d Cir.2005) (plain-error standard for Rule 11 challenges remaining after implicit plea issues)
- United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (Supreme Court 2004) (plea-related consequences and voluntariness considerations)
- United States v. Snype, 441 F.3d 119 (2d Cir.2006) (sentencing factors and burden-shifting in § 851 contexts)
- United States v. Alsol, 548 F.3d 207 (2d Cir.2008) (defining burden of proof when prior conviction at issue under § 851)
- United States v. Baugham, 613 F.3d 291 (D.C.Cir.2010) (§ 851(b) procedural safeguards and waiver concepts)
- United States v. Henderson, 613 F.3d 1177 (8th Cir.2010) (harmless-error approach to § 851 procedural defects)
- United States v. Cevallos, 538 F.2d 1122 (5th Cir.1976) (prejudice concerns from § 851 procedural omissions)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (Supreme Court 2000) (penalty enhancements based on facts reduce to jury-determined findings except certain sentencing factors)
- United States v. O'Brien, 130 S. Ct. 2169 (Supreme Court 2010) (burden of proof for sentencing factors related to prior convictions)
- United States v. Abdou, n/a (n/a) (not cited in opinion; placeholder to indicate non-required addition)