United States v. Jose Gabriel Garcia-Martinez
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 499
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Jose Gabriel Garcia-Martinez pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after deportation and was sentenced to 36 months; he appealed the 16-level § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) enhancement for a prior “crime of violence.”
- His predicate was a 2009 Florida conviction for second-degree burglary of a dwelling under Fla. Stat. § 810.02(3); Florida defines dwelling to include the dwelling together with its curtilage.
- The PSR applied a 16-level enhancement because the Florida burglary was treated as an enumerated “burglary of a dwelling” crime of violence under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 cmt. n.1(B)(iii); total offense level 21 after adjustments.
- The district court adopted the PSR and applied the enhancement, producing a guidelines range of 41–51 months, then varied downward to 36 months.
- The Eleventh Circuit reviewed de novo whether the Florida offense qualified as a § 2L1.2 enumerated crime of violence, applying the categorical and (if appropriate) modified categorical approaches.
- The court held Florida’s burglary-of-dwelling offense is non-generic under § 2L1.2 because Florida’s inclusion of curtilage makes the statute broader than the guideline’s generic definition; the Florida locational element is indivisible, so the modified categorical approach was inappropriate. The sentence was vacated and remanded for resentencing under the 2014 Guidelines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Garcia-Martinez) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Florida second-degree burglary of a dwelling is a § 2L1.2 "crime of violence" under the enumerated-offenses clause | Statute qualifies as burglary of a dwelling and thus triggers the 16-level enhancement | Florida burglary fits the Guidelines' dwelling definition or, at minimum, the modified categorical approach shows conviction was for dwelling burglary | Not categorical: Florida burglary (including curtilage) is broader than the generic § 2L1.2 dwelling; conviction is not categorically a crime of violence |
| Whether the court could use the modified categorical approach to identify a generic burglary-of-dwelling offense | If statute is divisible, court may examine plea/judgment to show the specific alternative was burglary of a dwelling | Statute is divisible or records show the defendant was convicted of the dwelling variant | No: Florida law treats curtilage as a means, not an alternative element; the locational element is indivisible, so modified categorical approach was improper |
| Effect of James v. United States (ACCA context) on § 2L1.2 analysis | James controls and shows Florida’s curtilage inclusion makes burglary non-generic under ACCA, but Guidelines context differs | Government argued James is not dispositive for Guidelines; still maintains enhancement | Court agreed James (ACCA) isn’t binding for § 2L1.2 but reached the same conclusion: Florida’s curtilage inclusion makes the statute non-generic under the Guidelines |
| Remedy after erroneous enhancement | N/A | N/A | Vacate sentence and remand for resentencing using the 2014 Guidelines (per 18 U.S.C. § 3742(g)(1)) |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (establishes categorical approach for generic burglary)
- James v. United States, 550 U.S. 192 (holds Florida’s curtilage inclusion removes its burglary from ACCA generic-burglary definition)
- Mathis v. United States, 579 U.S. _ (explains divisible vs. indivisible statutes and limits on modified categorical approach)
- United States v. McClenton, 53 F.3d 584 (Third Circuit, defining dwelling for guideline purposes; relied on by Eleventh Circuit)
- United States v. Ray, 245 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir. decision treating hotel rooms and similar enclosed habitations as dwellings under the Guidelines)
- United States v. Ramirez, 708 F.3d 295 (First Circuit decision concluding Florida’s curtilage inclusion broadens dwelling definition for Guidelines)
- United States v. Matchett, 802 F.3d 1185 (11th Cir.; discussed Florida burglary and prior interpretations though involved different guideline provisions)