742 F.3d 896
9th Cir.2014Background
- Vasquez-Perez was deported and illegally reentered; he was five months into a three-year supervised-release term when arrested for illegal reentry.
- A petition to revoke his supervised release was filed while he remained in custody on the underlying charges (illegal reentry).
- The district court sentenced him on the criminal charge (27–33 months plea) and separately imposed a 21-month term for the supervised-release violation, to run consecutively for a total of 51 months.
- Vasquez-Perez argued inadequate notice of the alleged violation at the initial appearance, improper overall sentence, and denial of Boykin protections.
- The panel held Rule 32.1 initial-appearance provisions do not apply when the defendant is in custody on other charges at revocation initiation; the 21-month sentence was within the guidelines and reasonable; Boykin protections do not apply in revocation proceedings.
- He appealed the 21-month revocation sentence as procedurally flawed and substantively unreasonable, but the panel affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Notice at initial appearance when in custody on other charges | Vasquez-Perez argues Rule 32.1 requires notice at initial appearance | Vasquez-Perez contends waiver ineffective due to en masse proceeding | Rule 32.1 initial-appearance provisions inapplicable; no error |
| Written notice of violation before revocation hearing | Adequate written notice given identifying statute and facts | Waiver or notice issues raised but not persuasive | Written notice proper; no defect |
| Reasonableness of 21-month revocation sentence | District court failed to consider § 3553(a) factors adequately | Sentence within low end of Guidelines range and supported by deterrence concerns | Procedurally sound; substantively reasonable within range |
| Boykin protections in revocation proceedings | Boykin rights (self-incrimination, right to testify) apply | Boykin safeguards do not apply to revocation | Boykin protections not applicable in revocation proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Havier, 155 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 1998) (due process in revocation proceedings; Rule 32.1 notice)
- Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (U.S. 1973) (due process in probation/parole revocation; deprivation interests)
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1972) (procedural safeguards for parole revocation)
- Segal v. United States, 549 F.2d 1293 (9th Cir. 1977) (Boykin protections not applicable to revocation)
- Carty, 520 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2008) (two-part test for reasonableness; procedural adequacy required)
- Blinkinsop, 606 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir. 2010) (guidelines-based sentencing; need not state every factor)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (U.S. 2007) (reasonableness of within-Guidelines sentences)