United States v. Francisco Hernandez-Quijada
698 F. App'x 399
9th Cir.2017Background
- Francisco Hernandez-Quijada pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 and was sentenced to 46 months' imprisonment.
- At sentencing the district court applied a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) based on a prior Arizona conviction under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3408(A) for a narcotics-related offense.
- Hernandez argued on appeal that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to argue that § 13-3408(A) is categorically overbroad and indivisible as to the type-of-narcotic requirement, so the prior conviction did not qualify as a "drug trafficking offense."
- Hernandez also contended his appellate waiver did not bar this appeal because he reserved the right to raise ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) claims.
- The Ninth Circuit declined to reach the merits of the IAC claim, finding the record insufficiently developed for IAC review on direct appeal and advising Hernandez to raise the claim in a § 2255 habeas proceeding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not arguing Arizona § 13-3408(A) is categorically overbroad/indivisible | Hernandez: counsel unreasonably failed to argue statute is categorically overbroad/indivisible so prior conviction did not qualify for 16-level enhancement | Government: (implicit) sentencing enhancement valid; counsel’s choices may have been strategic | Court: Did not decide on merits — record insufficient for IAC review on direct appeal; direct IAC claims better developed in § 2255 habeas |
| Whether appeal waiver bars this IAC challenge | Hernandez: waiver does not apply to ineffective-assistance claims reserved on appeal | Government: waiver would bar sentence appeals | Court: Did not resolve on merits because IAC claim not reached; appeal dismissed for procedural reasons |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Moreland, 622 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2010) (generally disfavoring review of ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal; prefer § 2255 proceedings)
- United States v. Jeronimo, 398 F.3d 1149 (9th Cir. 2005) (strategic choices by counsel can justify perceived omissions; need developed record to assess IAC)
- United States v. Jacobo-Castillo, 496 F.3d 947 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc) (overruled Jeronimo on other grounds)
- United States v. Laughlin, 933 F.2d 786 (9th Cir. 1991) (habeas process preferable for developing record on what counsel did, why, and resulting prejudice)