United States v. Michael Ortiz
927 F.3d 868
| 5th Cir. | 2019Background
- Ortiz, a convicted felon, pleaded guilty to possessing a Smith & Wesson .40 pistol and ammunition on Feb. 19, 2017, in the Northern District of Texas; plea included a stipulated Factual Resume and a PSR.
- Factual Resume: Ortiz and another man struggled over a gun during an altercation; Ortiz grabbed the gun, it discharged, Ortiz ran, hid in an apartment, later surrendered; gun recovered near a trash bin with Ortiz’s jacket nearby.
- PSR adds officer observations of Ortiz running, discarding the gun, barricading in an apartment, later arrested; additional unrelated firearms/drugs found at a relative’s residence.
- Ortiz waived appeal in his plea agreement but later challenged on appeal the sufficiency of the factual basis supporting his guilty plea, arguing (in part) self-defense.
- District court sentenced Ortiz to 90 months (within Guidelines). On plain-error review, the Fifth Circuit examined whether the record established each element of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2) and whether a justification defense would negate any element.
Issues
| Issue | Ortiz's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the factual basis for the guilty plea was insufficient to support conviction | Factual basis was deficient because it showed justified possession (self-defense/duress) or brief possession, so plea should not have been accepted | The Factual Resume and PSR admitted elements: knowing possession, prior felony, and interstate commerce; justification, if present, does not negate elements | Court held factual basis established all offense elements; even if a justification defense existed, it did not negate elements, so plea acceptance was proper |
| Whether a justification defense negates an element of felon-in-possession | Ortiz argued the facts showed temporary possession in self-defense which should prevent conviction | Government argued justification does not negate the knowing-possession element | Court held under Fifth Circuit precedent justification typically does not negate elements; brief/temporary possession still satisfies knowing-possession |
| Whether appellate review is barred by appeal waiver | Ortiz had waived appeal; he contended the waiver should prevent review | Government relied on waiver to bar appeal | Court held appeal waiver does not preclude review when factual basis fails to establish an element; here review permitted and affirmed |
| Proper scope of sources for assessing factual basis on appeal | Ortiz sought to limit reliance to plea admissions | Government and precedent supported considering broader record | Court applied precedent allowing review of plea colloquy, PSR, and other record materials to assess factual sufficiency |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Trejo, 610 F.3d 308 (5th Cir. 2010) (appellate review may scan entire record for facts supporting conviction)
- United States v. Parker, 566 F.2d 1304 (5th Cir. 1978) (momentary possession suffices; justification does not negate knowing possession)
- United States v. Panter, 688 F.2d 268 (5th Cir. 1982) (recognized limited self-defense/common-law exception for temporary possession in exigent circumstances)
- Smith v. United States, 568 U.S. 106 (2013) (distinguishes offenses from affirmative defenses; government need not disprove defenses that do not negate elements)
- Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197 (1977) (Due Process requires prosecution to prove elements beyond reasonable doubt; not required to disprove affirmative defenses)
- Dixon v. United States, 548 U.S. 1 (2006) (discusses when duress/justification may or may not negate elements)