United States v. Jose Escalante-Reyes
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 15385
| 5th Cir. | 2012Background
- Escalante-Reyes was convicted of illegal re-entry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
- The sentencing judge considered anger-management needs in determining sentence length, including a recommendation for anger management courses in prison.
- The Tapia decision later held that imprisonment cannot be imposed or lengthened to promote rehabilitation, creating a potential Tapia error.
- At sentencing, the district court referenced anger-management issues as the basis for the sentence length, which the defense argued was improper under Tapia.
- The en banc court analyzes whether plain error should be evaluated using the law at trial or at appeal when unsettled law becomes settled by appellate decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timing for plain-error review | Escalante-Reyes argues time-of-appeal governs plainness when law later clarifies. | Hood argues time-of-trial should govern plainness when unsettled law becomes settled on appeal. | Plainness judged at time of appeal when settled later. |
| Whether Tapia error was plain | Escalante-Reyes contends the error was plain under current law at appeal. | Government contends the error was not plainly evident at trial. | Tapia error was plain on appeal under current law. |
| Effect on substantial rights and remand | The error affected the length of sentence and justified remand. | The government contests that the error substantially affected rights. | Error affected substantial rights; remand warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Farrell, 670 F.3d 27 (1st Cir. 2012) (time-of-appeal plainness approach endorsed)
- United States v. Broussard, 669 F.3d 537 (5th Cir. 2012) (coherent en banc treatment of timing and plain error)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1993) (four-prong test for plain error; timing principle)
- Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (U.S. 1997) (plain-error timing when law changed between trial and appeal)
- Tapia v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2382 (U.S. 2011) (rehabilitation cannot be sole basis for imprisonment)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (U.S. 2009) (four-pronged plain-error framework and forfeiture balance)
- United States v. Reyna, 358 F.3d 344 (5th Cir. 2004) (fourth prong applied to sentencing context)
- Frady v. United States, 456 U.S. 152 (U.S. 1982) (plain error defined; dereliction standard)