United States v. Larry Stinnett
707 F. App'x 821
| 5th Cir. | 2018Background
- Larry Wayne Stinnett was convicted in federal court of possession of child pornography.
- The district court found Stinnett had a prior Texas conviction under Tex. Penal Code § 21.11 (indecency with a child) that "relat[ed] to aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or abusive sexual conduct involving a minor," triggering the enhanced penalty in 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(b)(2).
- The statutory enhancement raised Stinnett’s mandatory minimum to 10 years and maximum to 20 years; the district court sentenced him to 160 months and 10 years’ supervised release.
- Stinnett challenged the enhancement on appeal, conceding review is only for plain error because he did not raise the issue below.
- The panel applied the Fifth Circuit’s prior definitions of the generic offense of sexual abuse of a minor and concluded § 21.11 is not broader than that generic offense, so the enhancement was proper and the modified categorical approach was unnecessary.
- The court affirmed, holding Stinnett failed to show plain error affecting his substantial rights or the proceedings’ integrity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Stinnett’s Texas § 21.11 conviction qualifies as a § 2252A(b)(2) predicate | §21.11 does not qualify as an offense "relating to" sexual abuse of a minor | §21.11 fits the Fifth Circuit’s generic definition of sexual abuse of a minor | Court held §21.11 qualifies; enhancement proper |
| Standard of review | Error requires de novo review | Plain-error review applies because issue not preserved | Court applied plain-error review as conceded by Stinnett |
| Need for the modified categorical approach (Mathis) | §21.11 may be broader, requiring Mathis inquiry | §21.11, as a whole, is not broader than the generic offense, so Mathis is unnecessary | Court held Mathis did not apply; no modified categorical approach required |
| Whether plain error was established | The predicate finding was a clear/obvious error affecting substantial rights | Even if error existed, it did not seriously affect fairness/integrity of proceedings | Court found no plain error warranting relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (plain-error standard for unpreserved errors)
- United States v. Hubbard, 480 F.3d 341 (5th Cir.) (treating statutory terms as generic and using ordinary meaning)
- United States v. Izaguirre-Flores, 405 F.3d 270 (5th Cir.) (§21.11 qualifies as sexual abuse of a minor under Fifth Circuit precedent)
- United States v. Cortez-Cortez, 770 F.3d 355 (5th Cir.) (same)
- United States v. Puga-Yanez, 829 F.3d 317 (5th Cir.) (same)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (discusses when the modified categorical approach is required)
- Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions, 137 S. Ct. 1562 (noted but parties did not raise its effect on prior holdings)