United States v. Rolando Mendoza-Velasquez
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 1666
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Rolando Mendoza-Velasquez pleaded guilty to conspiracy to transport an illegal alien and was sentenced to 51 months' imprisonment and 3 years' supervised release.
- The presentence report documented a lengthy criminal history (since age 14) including assault, robbery, theft, drug offenses, daily polysubstance use, and an in-custody altercation where he punched a detainee.
- The PSR stated Mendoza-Velasquez reported no history of mental or emotional health problems and probation found no indication otherwise.
- At sentencing the district court imposed a special condition requiring Mendoza-Velasquez to “participate in a mental health program” and to incur costs based on ability to pay; Mendoza-Velasquez did not object below.
- On appeal the sole issue is whether the mental-health-condition was reversible plain error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether imposing a mental-health-treatment condition on supervised release was plain error | Mendoza-Velasquez: court erred because record lacks indication he needs mental-health treatment; condition stigmatizes and burdens rights and finances | Government: condition is supportable from record (violent history; Xanax use); even if error occurred, appellant failed to meet plain-error standards | Court affirmed: appellant failed to satisfy the fourth prong of plain-error review, so no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Weatherton, 567 F.3d 149 (5th Cir. 2009) (establishes plain-error standard when no timely objection to supervised-release condition)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (explains narrow scope of appellate plain-error relief)
- United States v. Escalante-Reyes, 689 F.3d 415 (5th Cir. 2012) (discusses deference to district courts under plain-error review)
- United States v. Scott, 821 F.3d 562 (5th Cir. 2016) (describes rare/egregious errors required to satisfy the fourth prong)
- United States v. Segura, 747 F.3d 323 (5th Cir. 2014) (long criminal history weighs against finding fourth-prong plain error)
- United States v. Prieto, 801 F.3d 547 (5th Cir. 2015) (modifiability of supervised-release conditions and availability of §3583(e)(2) remedy reduce need for appellate correction)