United States v. Romero-Galindez
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 5402
| 1st Cir. | 2015Background
- Romero-Galindez, paroled from Puerto Rico state custody (served for four murders committed as a juvenile), was arrested in 2012 after an AK-47 and ammunition were seized from his residence; he admitted ownership.
- Federal indictment charged him under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and as an Armed Career Criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1); he pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement recommending a 15-year sentence if ACCA applied.
- At the change-of-plea colloquy a magistrate judge misstated some penalties (did not recite the ACCA mandatory minimum/maximum and misstated supervised release as three years), but the plea agreement, R&R, three versions of the PSR, and sentencing transcript correctly stated penalties.
- The PSR calculated total offense level 30 and criminal-history category VI (Guidelines range 180–210 months); defense argued some criminal-history points should not apply because the priors were committed under age 18.
- At sentencing the judge rejected the parties’ 15-year recommendation and imposed 240 months (20 years) plus five years supervised release, citing the gravity of the AK-47 offense, four prior murder convictions, deterrence, and perceived prior leniency.
- On appeal Romero-Galindez challenged (1) voluntariness/validity of his plea under Rule 11 and (2) procedural and substantive reasonableness of the 20-year sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Romero-Galindez's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plea was knowing and voluntary under Rule 11 because court failed to state ACCA mandatory minimum and maximum | Plea not knowing/voluntary; judge omitted ACCA minimum/maximum at plea colloquy | Government pointed to accurate information in plea agreement, R&R, PSR, and at sentencing; error harmless | Plain error existed but defendant failed to show reasonable probability he would not have pleaded; plea stands |
| Whether misstatement of supervised-release term at plea hearing invalidates plea | Misstated three vs five years meant plea involuntary | Government conceded misstatement but argued defendant knew correct term from other documents and difference was immaterial | Error was harmless given PSR, R&R, and sentencing statements; no reasonable probability of different choice |
| Whether criminal-history calculation was erroneous (points counted despite juvenile status) | Criminal-history points miscalculated; should be lower category | Government: Guidelines calculation supported by PSR; but court emphasized Guidelines not dispositive | Even if Guidelines error, harmless because judge expressly rejected Guidelines as controlling and would not have imposed a lower Guidelines sentence |
| Whether sentence was procedurally/substantively unreasonable (court ignored Guidelines; used improper factors like public opinion/lenient state sentences) | Judge improperly disregarded Guidelines and overemphasized prior convictions/public perception | Government: Judge considered Guidelines, §3553(a) factors, and legitimate concerns (deterrence, severity, recidivism) | No abuse of discretion: judge reviewed Guidelines, explained §3553 reasons (seriousness, prior violent convictions, deterrence, prior leniency), and 20-year sentence was reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Santiago, 775 F.3d 104 (1st Cir.) (standard for plain-error review of unpreserved Rule 11 claims)
- United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (2004) (defendant must show reasonable probability that, but for Rule 11 error, he would not have pleaded)
- United States v. Rivera-Maldonado, 560 F.3d 16 (1st Cir.) (Rule 11 error where supervised-release stake was dramatically misstated could vitiate plea)
- United States v. Santo, 225 F.3d 92 (1st Cir.) (Rule 11 misstatement of mandatory minimum can affect voluntariness of plea)
- United States v. Sevilla-Oyola, 770 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.) (omitted penalty at plea hearing did not show plain error where PSR and plea materials contained correct info and defendant acknowledged understanding)
- United States v. Ortiz-García, 665 F.3d 279 (1st Cir.) (Rule 11 omission may be negated if correct info in PSR was reviewed; absence of confirmation can matter)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (Guidelines are starting point; courts may vary after considering §3553 factors)
- United States v. Flores-Machicote, 706 F.3d 16 (1st Cir.) (court may account for past leniency in prior sentences when imposing an upward variance)