United States v. Francisco Alcaraz
670 F. App'x 482
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Francisco Alcaraz was convicted of three counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) and appealed his convictions and sentence to the Ninth Circuit.
- The district court joined the three counts for trial over Alcaraz’s motion to sever.
- Police encountered Alcaraz in a car; he consented to an officer entering the vehicle, the officer observed a firearm in plain view, and the firearm was seized (ultimately after obtaining a warrant).
- Alcaraz sought a jury instruction on justification/self-defense, which the district court denied for lack of sufficient evidence of necessity or lack of reasonable legal alternative.
- At sentencing, the district court treated two prior Nevada convictions (assault with a deadly weapon and robbery with a deadly weapon) as crimes of violence for application of U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(2) and computed his criminal history, applying U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(e); Alcaraz challenged those calculations.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed in all respects, finding joinder proper, suppression and plain-view seizure lawful (and warrant obtained), no entitlement to a justification instruction, and sentencing calculations correct (or harmless if any minor error).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Joinder / severance of three counts | Joinder of similar offenses was proper and not prejudicial | Alcaraz argued the counts should be severed to avoid unfair prejudice | Affirmed: counts were similar; denial of severance not an abuse of discretion |
| Motion to suppress firearm seized in car | Officer had consent to enter; firearm in plain view and incriminating because defendant was a felon; seizure lawful (and warrant obtained) | Alcaraz argued evidence should be suppressed as unlawfully obtained | Affirmed: consent and plain-view exception justified viewing/seizure; warrant later obtained |
| Jury instruction on justification / self-defense | No sufficient evidence of lack of reasonable legal alternatives; instruction not required | Alcaraz argued entitlement to justification instruction based on self-defense claim | Affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion; insufficient evidence to instruct jury |
| Sentencing: base offense level & criminal history | Prior Nevada convictions qualify as crimes of violence; application of U.S.S.G. §§ 2K2.1 and 4A1.1(e) proper; even if minor error, Category VI result stands | Alcaraz contended prior offenses/criminal history score were miscalculated | Affirmed: prior convictions qualify; application of guidelines proper; any error harmless (Category VI remains) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jawara, 474 F.3d 565 (9th Cir.) (joinder of similar offenses standard)
- United States v. Rousseau, 257 F.3d 925 (9th Cir.) (joinder/severance analysis)
- United States v. VonWillie, 59 F.3d 922 (9th Cir.) (severance prejudice standard)
- United States v. Rubio, 727 F.2d 786 (9th Cir.) (consent to search principles)
- Roe v. Sherry, 91 F.3d 1270 (9th Cir.) (plain-view and incriminating nature analysis)
- United States v. Lemon, 824 F.2d 763 (9th Cir.) (justification instruction requirements)
- Camacho-Cruz v. Holder, 621 F.3d 941 (9th Cir.) (prior convictions as crimes of violence under sentencing guidelines)
- United States v. Harris, 572 F.3d 1065 (9th Cir.) (classification of prior offenses for sentencing)