United States v. Hernandez-Maldonado
793 F.3d 223
| 1st Cir. | 2015Background
- On March 23, 2012 police pursued a stolen 2001 Ford Explorer; the driver (Hernández‑Maldonado) discarded a pistol with an auto‑fire "chip" and fled; he was arrested and found to be a felon (including a prior murder conviction) on probation.
- Hernández‑Maldonado pled guilty in Oct. 2013 to being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
- Plea agreement: government would recommend 92 months, defendant would request 60 months; agreement stated guideline range was 92–115 months and warned in writing that defendant could not withdraw the plea if the court declined the recommendation.
- At the plea colloquy the district judge failed to orally warn the defendant, as required by Federal Rule Crim. P. 11(c)(3)(B), that he could not withdraw the plea if the court did not follow the government’s recommendation.
- District court sentenced Hernández‑Maldonado to 115 months (top of the guideline range), and he appealed arguing (1) Rule 11 plain error for omission of the oral warning and (2) that the sentence was substantively unreasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Hernández‑Maldonado) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court’s failure to give Rule 11(c)(3)(B) oral warning requires vacatur of plea | No reversible error; defendant signed plea containing the warning and record shows understanding | Vacate plea because court omitted the mandatory oral warning; plain error review applies | No reversible error: defendant failed to show a reasonable probability he would not have pled but for the omission |
| Whether 115‑month sentence was procedurally unreasonable | Sentence procedurally proper: guidelines correctly calculated, §3553(a) considered | Sentence substantively excessive given defendant’s history/characteristics (education, employment) | Sentence was procedurally sound; court considered relevant factors and explained rationale |
| Whether 115‑month sentence was substantively unreasonable | Within guidelines range; sentencing rationale plausible and defensible | Argues mitigation warranted a lower sentence | Substantively reasonable: within properly calculated guidelines and supported by defendant’s criminal history and conduct |
| Standard of review for sentence challenge | Plain error (defendant conceded) | (Argued similarly) | Plain‑error review applies; even assuming abuse of discretion, result stands |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (2004) (burden to show reasonable probability plea would not have been entered but for Rule 11 error)
- United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55 (2002) (standard for Rule 11 review when no contemporaneous objection)
- United States v. Correa-Osorio, 784 F.3d 11 (1st Cir. 2015) (plain‑error framework and preservation issues)
- United States v. Borrero-Acevedo, 533 F.3d 11 (1st Cir. 2008) (applying Dominguez Benitez standard)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (procedural and substantive reasonableness standards for sentencing)
- United States v. Martin, 520 F.3d 87 (1st Cir. 2008) (examples of procedural sentencing errors)
- United States v. Santiago-Rivera, 744 F.3d 229 (1st Cir. 2014) (range of reasonable sentences and importance of plausible rationale)
- United States v. Vega-Salgado, 769 F.3d 100 (1st Cir. 2014) (deference when sentence falls within guidelines)
- United States v. Dixon, 449 F.3d 194 (1st Cir. 2006) (district court need not recite each §3553(a) factor in checklist fashion)
- United States v. Murphy-Cordero, 715 F.3d 398 (1st Cir. 2013) (addressing preservation and substantive‑reasonableness challenges)