Case o' The Week: What Happens in Vegas . . . Gets Reversed in SF -- Castillo-Marin and Taylor Sentencing
Las Vegas, surprisingly, isn’t so hot at interpreting New York. United States v. Castillo-Marin, 2012 WL
2550594 (9th Cir. July 3, 2012), decision available here.
Players: Decision by CD Cal DJ Timlin, joined by Judge Fisher.
Dissent by Judge Rawlinson. Nice win for Nev. AFPD Brenda Weksler and Federal Defender
Rene Valladares.
Facts: The PSR for Castillo-Marin’s
illegal-reentry sentencing in Las Vegas hit the defendant with a +16 offense
level, specific offense adjustment. Id.
at *1. The PSR described a New York prior, where the charging document alleged
Castillo-Marin had stabbed a man five times with a knife – putting the victim
in critical care. Id. Looking to the “crime
of violence” definition at 8 USC § 1101(a)(43) [ed. note – a definition used
for “agg felonies”], the PSR found the New York prior qualified and recommended
a sentence within the offense level 21 range (post-acceptance). Id. The defense did not object. Id.
Issue(s): “Castillo-Marin challenges the
district court’s application of U.S. Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G.) §
2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii), which imposes a 16-level enhancement where a defendant has
previously committed a crime of violence. He contends that the district court
committed plain error by relying solely on the PSR’s characterization of his
prior conviction.” Id. at *1.
Held: “[T]o
the extent the district court relied on the PSR’s factual description of
Castillo-Marin’s prior offense to determine that Castillo-Marin had been
convicted of a crime of violence, it plainly erred.” Id. at *3.
Of Note: Appellate folks: here are two
nuggets in Castillo-Marin to tuck
away for future briefs. First, the defense here argued in its opening brief
that all four prongs of the plain error analysis were met. Id. at *2. In its answering brief, the government did not contest
that the first two prongs of plain error were satisfied. Id. The government was then (to its likely chagrin) bound by that
concession: when the government fails to contest an argument in its answering
brief it is “deemed waived.” Id.
Second, the government urges the Ninth to take “judicial
notice” of New York documents surrounding the prior. Id. at *7. Judge Timlin ain’t buying it, emphasizing that the Ninth
“rarely take[s] judicial notice of facts presented for the first time on
appeal.” Id. Remember Castillo-Marin when the government tries
to sneak facts in on appeal through the “judicial notice” ruse.
How to
Use: Castillo-Marin
is a good source for three sentencing propositions that are now black-letter
law:
• A district court can’t use a PSR for the Taylor analysis. Id. at *3.• PSRs are so off-limits for Taylor sentencing that using them can constitute plain error on appellate review. Id. at *4.• Charging documents (here, the New York indictment) alone are never sufficient to establish a predicate offense under the modified categorical analysis. Id. at *9.
For
Further Reading: Aggravating matters (pun intended),
the Las Vegas Probation Office used the wrong definition of “crime of violence”
when it hit Castillo-Marin with a +16 OL specific offense adjustment. Id. at *4. The Probation Office used the
statutory definition, for aggravated felonies. Id. (discussing §1101(a)(43)). The +16 OL specific offense adjustment in Guideline §
2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii), however, has a different
definition of “crime of violence.”
“Crime of Violence” (or, “C.O.V.”, for Taylor geeks) is a complex and subtle
area of law that can make a big difference for our illegal reentry, ACCA, and
Career Offender clients. For a helpful outline on this complicated area, see
Michael A. Meetze, AFPD D. S. Carolina, Determining
“Crimes of Violence” and “Violent Felonies”, available here.
Image of "New York, New York Las Vegas" from http://nokiaconnects.com/2012/01/12/ces-day-3-nokia-connects-in-las-vegas/new-york-new-york-las-vegas-2/
Steven Kalar, Senior Litigator N.D. Cal. FPD. Website at www.ndcalfpd.org
.
Labels: Categorical analysis, Fisher, Modified categorical analysis, PSRs, Rawlinson, Sentencing, Taylor Analysis
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home