United States v. Manuel Guerrero-Jasso
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 9712
| 9th Cir. | 2014Background
- Guerrero-Jasso, brought to the U.S. by his mother from Mexico at age 11, was found unlawfully present in California at 26.
- He pled guilty to 8 U.S.C. §1326(a) for reentry after removal and received a 42-month sentence.
- The information alleged removals on three dates, but the plea admitted only that he was removed on one of the dates, not which one.
- The PSR listed all three removal dates and concluded the twenty-year maximum under §1326(b)(2) applied because removal followed an aggravated felony.
- The district court sentenced under the twenty-year maximum based on an alleged sequence of removals despite Guerrero-Jasso not admitting the post-conviction removal dates in his plea.
- On appeal, Guerrero-Jasso challenged the enhancement as violating Apprendi, and the sentence was vacated and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Apprendi requires jury admission for §1326(b) enhancement | Guerrero-Jasso | United States | Enhancement requires admission or jury finding of the post-conviction removal date. |
| Whether a guilty plea admitting multiple removal dates can support the twenty-year maximum | Guerrero-Jasso did not admit all dates; plea admitted only one | Plea plus PSR can justify enhancement | Plea alone did not admit the necessary sequencing; remand required. |
| Whether post-conviction evidence (warrants, PSR, confession) can establish harmless error | Government relied on post-conviction evidence to justify harmless error | Such evidence cannot substitute for proper admission | Post-conviction evidence cannot satisfy Apprendi harmlessness; error not harmless. |
| Whether Mendoza-Zaragoza controls the indictment/plea analysis for §1326(b) enhancement | Indictment can support enhancement if removal date alleged | Guilty plea must admit the necessary removal date | Mendoza-Zaragoza does not authorize relying on a conjunctive plea to admit all dates. |
Key Cases Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (fundamental requirement that factors increasing max penalty be admitted or juried)
- Mendoza-Zaragoza v. United States, 567 F.3d 431 (9th Cir. 2009) (indictment can support §1326(b) enhancement by alleging a removal date; sequencing matters)
- Zepeda-Martinez v. United States, 470 F.3d 909 (9th Cir. 2006) (harmless-error review; post-conviction evidence can aid analysis but must be uncontested)
- Hunt v. United States, 656 F.3d 906 (9th Cir. 2011) (plea admissions and harmlessness framework; emphasis on explicit admission of omitted element)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1999) (harmless-error standard; requires proof beyond reasonable doubt for omitted elements)
- Recuenco v. United States, 548 U.S. 212 (U.S. 2006) (harmlessness review for Apprendi violations; not definitive on method)
- Desscamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (U.S. 2013) (Sixth Amendment jury requirement for determining facts increasing maximum sentence)