United States v. Trujillo, 960 F.3d 1196

Defendant pleaded guilty on Sept. 25, 2018 to being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)); district court sentenced him to 120 months’ imprisonment and 3 years supervised release.
After Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019), the law requires the Government to prove the defendant knew of his felon status when possessing a firearm; Rehaif was decided while this appeal was pending.
Defendant argued his Rule 11 plea colloquy was constitutionally inadequate because the court did not advise him of the knowledge-of-status element required by Rehaif; the claim was reviewed for plain error because it was not raised below.
The district court omitted the knowledge-of-status element at the plea but the record showed Defendant had six prior felony convictions, served time, and admitted awareness of wrongdoing—facts the court found undermined any claim of prejudice.
Separately, the district court misapplied U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(1) (used when a defendant has at least two violent-felony convictions) even though Defendant had only one such conviction; the government conceded this sentencing error.
Holding: the court affirmed the conviction (Rehaif-related omission was plain error but not prejudicial or structural) and remanded for resentencing because the Guidelines error plainly affected Defendant’s substantial rights.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether omission of Rehaif knowledge-of-status element in plea colloquy invalidates plea	Government conceded the omission was plain error but argued no prejudice given the record (overwhelming evidence Defendant knew he was a felon)	Defendant argued omission rendered plea unknowing, involuntary, and thus constitutionally invalid (structural error or, at minimum, plain error affecting substantial rights)	Omission was plain error but not structural; Defendant failed to show a reasonable probability he would have gone to trial, so conviction affirmed
Whether district court erred in applying U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(1) (two violent felonies)	Government conceded the guideline application was erroneous	Defendant argued the court misapplied the guideline because he had only one violent-felony conviction	Plain error shown; error increased base offense level and guideline range; remanded for resentencing

Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (Sup. Ct. 2019) (knowledge-of-status is an element of § 922(g) offenses)
Silva v. United States, 889 F.3d 704 (10th Cir. 2018) (pre-Rehaif statement of § 922(g) elements)
Dominguez Benitez v. United States, 542 U.S. 74 (2004) (plain-error review of Rule 11 omissions; harmless-error/structural-error distinctions)
Henderson v. Morgan, 426 U.S. 637 (1976) (plea involuntary where defendant not informed of an essential element; examine totality of circumstances)
Hicks v. Franklin, 546 F.3d 1279 (10th Cir. 2008) (applying Henderson framework to vacate plea when a critical element was omitted)
Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969) (plea must be an intelligent and voluntary waiver of constitutional rights)
Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (1997) (structural-error doctrine narrow; appellate discretion on plain error relief)
Weaver v. Massachusetts, 137 S. Ct. 1899 (2017) (three rationales for structural error analysis)
Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) (omission of an element generally subject to harmless-error review)
Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016) (incorrect Guidelines range generally establishes prejudice under plain-error review)