United States v. Rodolfo Gavilanes-Ocaranza
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 22313
| 9th Cir. | 2014Background
- Defendant Gavilanes-Ocaranza pleaded guilty in 2009 to attempted reentry after removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1326, receiving 33 months’ imprisonment and 3 years’ supervised release.
- As a condition, he agreed not to reenter the United States illegally and not to commit further crimes.
- In 2012, he pleaded guilty to another removal offense under § 1326 and was sentenced to 46 months’ imprisonment and 3 years’ supervised release.
- In revocation proceedings for the 2009 conviction, the district court revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to 12 months’ imprisonment, to run consecutively to the 46-month sentence.
- Defendant appeals, raising Sixth Amendment challenges; other arguments are addressed in an unpublished memorandum disposition.
- The court reviews for plain error because the Sixth Amendment objections were not raised below, and affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sixth Amendment speedy trial guarantees apply in supervised release revocation | Gavilanes-Ocaranza argues revocation extends the original prosecution, violating speedy trial. | Gavilanes-Ocaranza asserts a lengthy delay infringes speedy-trial rights. | No Sixth Amendment speedy-trial right in revocation proceedings. |
| Whether Alleyne alters Huerta-Pimental’sThird | Gavilanes-Ocaranza contends Alleyne overrules Huerta-Pimental on jury right. | Huerta-Pimental remains controlling; Alleyne does not apply to revocation. | Alleyne does not affect Huerta-Pimental; revocation does not violate right to jury. |
Key Cases Cited
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1972) (parole/probation revocation occurs post-prosecution; Sixth Amendment not triggered)
- Paskow, 11 F.3d 873 (9th Cir. 1993) (parole and supervised release are the same for ex post facto analysis)
- Soto-Olivas, 44 F.3d 788 (9th Cir. 1995) (revocations are not double jeopardy punishments separate from the underlying crime)
- Huerta-Pimental, 445 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 2006) (revocation of supervised release does not violate right to jury)
- Santana, 526 F.3d 1257 (9th Cir. 2008) (speedy-trial concerns do not extend to supervised-release revocation; due process basis)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (extends jury trial rights to certain factual determinations in sentencing, not revocation)
- United States v. Hall, 419 F.3d 980 (9th Cir. 2005) (no Sixth Amendment right to speedy trial in probation/parole-like revocation)