United States v. Urbina-Robles
817 F.3d 838
1st Cir.2016Background
- Early morning home invasion and carjacking in Puerto Nuevo, Puerto Rico (Feb 4, 2013): Urbina and two masked, armed accomplices assaulted a father and his son, tied them up, beat them, and stole cash, valuables, and the victim's car. Victims suffered physical injuries and lasting psychological harm.
- Urbina was indicted on carjacking (18 U.S.C. § 2119) and using a firearm during a crime of violence (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)). He entered an unconditional (straight) guilty plea to both counts and received a total sentence of 360 months' imprisonment.
- The indictment and the plea colloquy misstated the § 2119 element by charging that the car was taken "from" the victim rather than "from the person or presence" of the victim.
- Urbina appealed, arguing (1) Rule 11 violations during the plea colloquy (including failure to state elements and certain collateral consequences), and (2) procedural and substantive sentencing errors (guidelines enhancements and overall reasonableness).
- The First Circuit reviewed unpreserved Rule 11 and sentencing objections for plain error and affirmed both the conviction and the 360-month sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Urbina) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Indictment/plea misstated § 2119 element ("person or presence") | Indictment and court misstated element; omission deprived him of notice and warrants vacatur | Errors are nonjurisdictional and were waived by straight plea; even if error, record shows government could prove element and no prejudice | Court: Misstatements were clear but non-jurisdictional; Urbina waived most challenges and failed plain-error prejudice showing, so plea stands |
| Rule 11 colloquy and disclosure errors (elements, supervised release, restitution, guidelines) | Multiple Rule 11 violations rendered plea unknowing and involuntary | Errors did not create reasonable probability Urbina would have gone to trial given strong evidence and sentencing benefit from plea | Court: Several Rule 11 errors occurred, but Urbina failed plain-error prejudice prong; plea not vacated |
| Sentencing: guideline enhancements (serious bodily injury; loss > $50,000; vulnerable victim) | Enhancements improperly applied—no serious bodily injury, loss overstated, no knowledge son was minor | Record shows prolonged physical/psychological harm (supports serious bodily injury), victim insurance claim and stolen items support >$50,000 loss, and factors support that son (minor) was known or should have been known to be vulnerable | Court: No plain error in applying all three enhancements; district court's findings adequate |
| Substantive reasonableness of 360-month sentence | Sentence above guidelines range (by 41 months) was excessive given enhancements and history | District court provided a plausible sentencing rationale: violent, heinous conduct and extensive criminal history | Court: Sentence was reasonable and not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625 (defects in indictment are not jurisdictional)
- United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (plain-error standard for unpreserved Rule 11 claims in guilty-plea cases)
- United States v. Gandia-Maysonet, 227 F.3d 1 (core concerns of Rule 11: defendant must understand elements; prejudice inquiry)
- United States v. Delgado-Hernandez, 420 F.3d 16 (assessing plea colloquy errors against indictment and plea agreement)
- United States v. Díaz-Doncel, 811 F.3d 517 (unconditional guilty plea waives nonjurisdictional challenges)
- United States v. Reed, 26 F.3d 523 (serious and continuing mental injury can qualify as serious bodily injury)
- United States v. Lowe, 145 F.3d 45 (mental trauma following physical assault can meet protracted impairment standard)
- United States v. Jones, 778 F.3d 375 (district court not required to advise defendant about specific sentencing-guidelines provisions)