United States v. Huizar
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 15597
| 10th Cir. | 2012Background
- Huizar pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after prior deportation; district court imposed a 16-level § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) enhancement based on his 1995 California residential burglary conviction.
- Taylor v. United States held burglary has a generic, contemporary meaning for ACCA purposes, not necessarily the state-law definition.
- This court extended Taylor to § 2L1.2’s “burglary of a dwelling” and required a showing of “unlawful or unprivileged entry with intent to commit a crime.”
- California Penal Code § 459 does not require the dwelling or unlawful/unprivileged entry; state law allows burglary after a lawful entry or by invitation.
- The information charged unlawful entry and could reflect either a generic unlawful entry or an informed-consent defense; ambiguity exists about what “unlawfully” means in the charging document
- Because the state charging document could be read in multiple ways, the conviction may not necessarily meet the federal generic burglary definition; remand for resentencing is required to address this, vacating the sentence and resenting under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Huizar’s CA burglary qualifies as generic burglary for §2L1.2 | Huizar | Huizar | Remand; not certain it qualifies |
| Effect of the word ‘unlawfully’ in the charging document | Huizar | Huizar | Ambiguity prevents applying §2L1.2 |
| Availability of modified categorical approach here | Huizar | Huizar | Modified approach assumed but does not resolve the ambiguity |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (U.S. 1990) (defines generic burglary for ACCA and guides related contexts)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (U.S. 2005) (requires specific admissible records to prove offense elements in § 2L1.2/timing of admissions)
- United States v. Strahl, 958 F.2d 980 (10th Cir. 1992) (insufficient charging document to prove generic burglary)
- United States v. Rivera-Oros, 590 F.3d 1123 (10th Cir. 2009) (extends Taylor to sentencing guidelines context)
- United States v. Venzor-Granillo, 668 F.3d 1224 (10th Cir. 2012) (modified categorical approach may be used to determine generic offense)
- Aguila-Montes de Oca, 655 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc; related discussion on state charging documents and ‘unlawful’ language)