United States v. Jose Carrillo
982 F.3d 1134
8th Cir.2020Background:
- Carrillo brokered two methamphetamine transactions: one in South Dakota (~1 kg) involving Erik Rodriguez-Venegas, and, about a month later, he recruited Javier Romero Ochoa to transport several kilograms discovered in Iowa.
- Federal indictments proceeded in parallel: South Dakota charged a conspiracy with Rodriguez-Venegas; Iowa charged possession with intent to distribute and a separate conspiracy with Ochoa.
- Carrillo moved to dismiss the Iowa indictment on double-jeopardy grounds before any pleas; the district court denied that motion, finding jeopardy had not attached.
- Carrillo pled guilty in Iowa, later pled guilty in South Dakota (receiving a 51-month sentence); the Iowa court denied a renewed double-jeopardy motion as waived by his guilty plea.
- At Iowa sentencing the court granted a downward variance for mitigation (military service, work record, mental-health struggles) and imposed concurrent 190-month terms; Carrillo appealed as to double jeopardy and substantive reasonableness.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Iowa conspiracy prosecution violated the Double Jeopardy Clause | Carrillo: he was prosecuted twice for the same conspiracy | Gov't: jeopardy had not attached in SD at the time of the Iowa plea; moreover, guilty plea waived the objection | Denied. Court affirmed: plea waived the claim and, given timing, any claim should have been pursued in SD after the Iowa plea |
| Whether the 190-month sentence was substantively unreasonable | Carrillo: sentence was too long; district court should have given a larger downward variance for military service, mental health, and lack of criminal history | Gov't: district court reasonably weighed mitigation and already granted a downward variance | Affirmed. No abuse of discretion; differing weight on factors alone is not reversible |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161 (1977) (establishes Double Jeopardy protections)
- United States v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563 (1989) (guilty plea waives certain defenses to multiple prosecutions for distinct offenses)
- United States v. Pierre, 870 F.3d 845 (8th Cir. 2017) (double-jeopardy waiver is assessed by the face of the record at the time the plea was entered)
- United States v. Pierre, 795 F.3d 847 (8th Cir. 2015) (same plea-record waiver principle)
- United States v. Rea, 300 F.3d 952 (8th Cir. 2002) (discusses when jeopardy may attach)
- Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970) (constitutional rights, including Double Jeopardy, may be personally waived)
- Willhauck v. Flanagan, 448 U.S. 1323 (1980) (once jeopardy attaches in one proceeding, defendant can present the claim to the second trial judge)
- United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review for substantive-reasonableness challenges)
- United States v. McKanry, 628 F.3d 1010 (8th Cir. 2011) (deference where district court already granted a downward variance)
- United States v. Hall, 825 F.3d 373 (8th Cir. 2016) (different weighting of sentencing factors is not an abuse of discretion)