United States v. Miguel De La Torre-Jimenez
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 21317
9th Cir.2014Background
- Defendant Miguel de la Torre-Jimenez pleaded guilty to being a deported alien found in the U.S. in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 and received an 18‑month sentence.
- At sentencing, the district court applied a 16‑level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) because Defendant had a prior felony conviction under Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11351 (possession for sale) and the prior sentence exceeded 13 months.
- The key legal question was whether the § 11351 conviction qualified as a “drug trafficking offense” under the Guidelines.
- The court applied the modified categorical approach after concluding § 11351 is a divisible statute with respect to the listed controlled substances and relied on three documents: criminal complaint, abstract of judgment, and docket sheet.
- The charging document expressly alleged possession for sale of cocaine for Count 1, and the abstract and docket showed Defendant pleaded guilty to that count; the district court therefore found the prior conviction involved cocaine (a CSA controlled substance).
- Defendant argued (1) § 11351 is indivisible under Descamps and thus the modified categorical approach is unavailable, and (2) even if it applies, the record does not establish the prior conviction involved cocaine. The Ninth Circuit rejected both arguments and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11351 is divisible for the modified categorical approach | Government: § 11351 lists alternative controlled substances and is divisible | De la Torre: § 11351 is not divisible under Descamps | Court: § 11351 is divisible (bound by Coronado precedent) |
| Whether the modified categorical approach could be used to identify the controlled substance | Government: admissible charging and judgment documents allow identification | De la Torre: records are insufficient or ambiguous to show cocaine | Court: documents unambiguously show Count 1 alleged cocaine and defendant pleaded to Count 1; thus cocaine established |
| Whether the prior conviction is a “drug trafficking offense” under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) | Government: conviction involved cocaine (a CSA Schedule II) so enhancement applies | De la Torre: conviction not proven to involve a CSA substance | Court: conviction involved cocaine; 16‑level enhancement proper |
| Whether Vidal’s “critical phrase” rule bars reliance on charging‑document allegations absent a specific phrase in the judgment | Government: Vidal’s one sentence is not controlling where the record is unambiguous | De la Torre: Vidal requires the ‘‘as charged in the Information/Indictment’’ phrasing | Court: Vidal’s phrasing not required where abstract/minute order unambiguously ties plea to a specific count alleging the substance |
Key Cases Cited
- Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (holding modified categorical approach applies only to divisible statutes)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (describing categorical/modified categorical approaches)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (permissible documents for modified categorical inquiry)
- Coronado v. Holder, 759 F.3d 977 (9th Cir.) (holding California drug statute listing substances is divisible)
- Leal-Vega v. Gonzales, 680 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir.) (applying categorical/modified categorical approach to § 2L1.2)
- Vidal v. Gonzales, 504 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. en banc) (discussing when judgment must contain phrase tying plea to charging document)