Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantstatuteappealpleaprobationdeportationguilty pleasentencing guidelines
defendantappealpleaprobationdeportationguilty pleasentencing guidelines

Related Cases

Gonzalez-Zotelo; U.S. v.
View Case »
Dos Santos v. Gonzales
View Case »
Lopez v. U.S Attorney Gen.
View Case »
Rogan v. Reno
View Case »
United States v. Flores-Uribe
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

United States v. Guerrero-Velasquez

Facts

Guerrero-Velasquez was charged with being an alien in the United States after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326. He pled guilty on September 28, 2004. The United States Probation office submitted a presentence investigation report, and the government objected to the report's treatment of Guerrero-Velasquez's previous conviction for second-degree burglary in Washington. The government argued that under 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, the report should have imposed a 16-level specific offense characteristic enhancement for the Defendant's prior crime of violence conviction.

Guerrero-Velasquez was charged with being an alien in the United States after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326. He pled guilty on September 28, 2004. The United States Probation office submitted a presentence investigation report, and the government objected to the report's treatment of Guerrero-Velasquez's previous conviction for second-degree burglary in Washington. Specifically, the government argued that under 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, the report should have imposed 'a 16-level specific offense characteristic enhancement for the Defendant's prior crime of violence conviction.'

Issue

Is a guilty plea an admission of the facts charged in the indictment, and does an Alford plea constitute a guilty plea under Taylor v. United States?

There are two questions before us on this appeal. First, is a guilty plea an admission of the facts charged in the indictment? Second, is an Alford plea, in which the defendant enters a guilty plea while maintaining his innocence, nevertheless a guilty plea under Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 110 S. Ct. 2143, 109 L. Ed. 2d 607 (1990)?

Rule

Under Taylor, a state conviction meets the generic definition of burglary if the burglary statute contains at least the following elements: an unlawful or unprivileged entry into, or remaining in, a building or other structure, with intent to commit a crime. The definition of 'burglary of a dwelling' is the same as the 'Taylor definition of burglary, with the narrowing qualification that the burglary occur in a dwelling.

Section 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines provides that an alien who has illegally reentered the United States should receive a sixteen-level sentencing enhancement if he has a prior conviction for 'a crime of violence.' See U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) (2003). 1 The commentary accompanying the sentencing guidelines defines a crime of violence to include the 'burglary of a dwelling.' See U.S.S.G. 2L1.2 cmt. n.1(B)(iii) (2003).

Analysis

The district court found that second-degree burglary was not categorically a crime of violence under Washington state law. It then applied Taylor's modified categorical approach but limited its factual inquiry to the criminal information and police reports submitted by the government. The court failed to consider Guerrero-Velasquez's signed plea agreement, which indicated that he pled guilty to second-degree burglary, thereby admitting the factual allegations in the indictment.

Applying Taylor, the district court found that second-degree burglary was not categorically a crime of violence under Washington state law. The court then applied Taylor's modified categorical approach; after conducting a limited factual inquiry into Guerrero-Velasquez's criminal history, the court found that the government had not submitted any evidence from which the court could conclude that he had been convicted of a crime of violence. It therefore rejected the government's position and sentenced him without imposing the enhancement.

Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit vacated Guerrero-Velasquez's sentence and remanded the case to the district court for resentencing under the discretionary guidelines.

Because the district court misapplied the modified categorical approach under Taylor in sentencing Guerrero-Velasquez, we vacate his sentence and remand to the district court for resentencing under the discretionary guidelines.

Who won?

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the defendant's sentence, concluding that the district court misapplied the modified categorical approach under Taylor.

The Ninth Circuit vacated Guerrero-Velasquez's sentence, concluding that the district court misapplied the modified categorical approach under Taylor.

You must be