United States v. Raul Mendez-Bello
678 F. App'x 508
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Raul Mendez-Bello was charged with illegal reentry; undisputed that he is not a U.S. citizen and entered without authorization.
- The contested factual issue was whether he entered the U.S. intending to be free from official restraint (intent required under the governing precedent).
- Defendant testified he intended to be caught to obtain food and shelter; defense mentioned lack of contact with family in the U.S. for over a decade.
- Prosecutor briefly cross-examined using the defendant’s 2013 sentencing statement (prepared by the same attorney) that said the defendant entered to see a common-law wife and children. The line of questioning was short and not central to the case.
- Defendant convicted; at sentencing the district court considered a prior aggravated-felony removal and imposed a 46-month term under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of attorney’s prior statement (Rule 404(b)/Rule 16) | Prosecution used the statement on cross to impeach; argued its limited use was proper | Admission violated notice rules and was prejudicial | Any evidentiary error was harmless; statement was a minor part of trial and did not materially affect verdict (Vega harmless-error standard) |
| Conflict-free counsel (Sixth Amendment) | N/A (government) | Counsel who authored the prior statement had a conflict that could deter attacking his own statement, violating Sixth Amendment | No actual conflict shown on the record; only a possible conflict existed and defendant did not show the statement was false, so claim fails (Moore/Strickland standard) |
| Confrontation Clause (Sixth Amendment) | N/A (government) | Admission of counsel’s prior statement violated right to confront witnesses | Defendant forfeited below; reviewed for plain error and failed because any error was not clear or obvious (Anekwu) |
| Sentencing factor / statutory maximum (Alleyne/Almendarez‑Torres) | N/A (government) | Court erred by using prior conviction at sentencing without it being alleged in indictment or proved to jury beyond reasonable doubt; Alleyne requires elements be submitted to jury | Almendarez‑Torres remains binding: prior convictions are a sentencing factor exception and need not be alleged or proved to jury; sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Lombrera-Valdovinos, 429 F.3d 927 (9th Cir.) (defines intent inquiry for illegal reentry)
- United States v. Vega, 188 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 1999) (harmless-error standard applied)
- United States v. Moore, 159 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 1998) (actual-conflict-on-record requirement)
- United States v. Wells, 394 F.3d 725 (9th Cir. 2005) (actual conflict requires effect on counsel’s performance)
- United States v. Anekwu, 695 F.3d 967 (9th Cir. 2012) (plain-error review requires clear or obvious error)
- Almendarez‑Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998) (prior-conviction exception to elements-to-jury rule)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (requires jury finding of facts that increase mandatory minimums; noted it did not overrule Almendarez‑Torres)
- United States v. Leyva‑Martinez, 632 F.3d 568 (9th Cir. 2011) (Almendarez‑Torres remains binding in the Ninth Circuit)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standard for prejudice when counsel conflict is possible)