United States v. Trujillo ( 2021 )

Case: 20-10679 Document: 00515931466 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/09/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
July 9, 2021
No. 20-10679 Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Juan Trujillo,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:19-CR-151-1
Before King, Dennis, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
James C. Ho, Circuit Judge:
If a defendant is convicted of unlawful reentry into the United States
after previously being removed from our country, federal law imposes a
statutory maximum sentence of twenty years if his prior removal was
subsequent to a conviction for an “aggravated felony.” 8 U.S.C.
§ 1326(b)(2). The term “aggravated felony” includes “a crime of violence”
as that term has been defined in 18 U.S.C. § 16. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F).
We hold that Texas’s intoxication manslaughter statute, Tex.
Penal Code § 49.08(a), does not constitute a “crime of violence” under
Case: 20-10679 Document: 00515931466 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/09/2021
No. 20-10679
18 U.S.C. § 16. As a result, the district court here erred when it convicted
and sentenced Juan Trujillo under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) based on his prior
conviction under Texas Penal Code § 49.08(a). But as it turns out, the error
did not ultimately affect his sentence. So there is no need to remand for
resentencing. Accordingly, we reform the judgment to correct the error
under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and affirm the sentence as reformed.
I.
In 1995, Trujillo, a citizen of Mexico, was convicted of intoxication
manslaughter under Texas Penal Code § 49.08(a), and sentenced to ten years
in prison. He was later deported upon his release, but he subsequently
returned to the United States. In 2008, he was arrested for driving while
intoxicated (DWI). He was deported a second time, but again later returned
to the United States. In 2017, he was arrested for DWI again.
Trujillo pleaded guilty to DWI in state court and was sentenced to two
years in prison. After his release, he was transferred to federal custody
pursuant to an indictment for illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The
indictment informed Trujillo that he was subject to a statutory maximum of
twenty years in prison under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2).
Trujillo pleaded guilty to illegal reentry. The presentence report
(PSR) calculated a range of seventy to eighty-seven months under the U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines. Like the indictment, the PSR also stated that he was
subject to a statutory maximum sentence of twenty years. The PSR noted his
1995 Texas conviction for intoxication manslaughter.
Trujillo did not file any written objections to the PSR and did not
object to it at sentencing. The district court sentenced Trujillo to a within-
Guidelines sentence of seventy-two months and two years of supervised
release—well short of the twenty-year statutory maximum under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1326(b)(2). Trujillo did not object to his sentence. He timely appealed.
2
Case: 20-10679 Document: 00515931466 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/09/2021
No. 20-10679
Because Trujillo did not object to the PSR’s conclusion that he was
subject to judgment under § 1326(b)(2), we review the district court’s
decision for plain error. See United States v. Castaneda-Lozoya, 812 F.3d 457,
459 (5th Cir. 2016). To prevail on plain error review, Trujillo must identify
(1) a forfeited error (2) that is clear or obvious, rather than subject to
reasonable dispute, and (3) that affects his substantial rights. See Puckett v.
United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he satisfies these three
requirements, we may correct the error at our discretion if it “seriously
affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.”
Id. (quotations omitted).
II.
On appeal, Trujillo argues—and the Government concedes—that the
district court erred by entering judgment under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2),
because his Texas intoxication manslaughter conviction does not qualify as a
“crime of violence” under 18 U.S.C. § 16.
When a defendant is convicted of illegal reentry following his removal
from the United States, and his prior removal followed a conviction for an
“aggravated felony,” he is subject to a maximum sentence of twenty years.
8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). If his prior removal followed a conviction for a felony
that does not qualify as an “aggravated felony,” however, he is subject to a
maximum sentence of ten years. 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1).
Federal law defines “aggravated felony” to include “a crime of
violence” as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 16. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F). Section
16(a), in turn, defines “a crime of violence” as “an offense that has as an
element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against
the person or property of another.” 18 U.S.C. § 16(a). (The Supreme Court
held in Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018), that § 16(b) is
unconstitutionally vague, so we apply only § 16(a) here.)
3
Case: 20-10679 Document: 00515931466 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/09/2021
No. 20-10679
Under Texas law, a person commits intoxication manslaughter if he
(1) “operates a motor vehicle in a public place,” (2) “is intoxicated,” and (3)
“by reason of that intoxication causes the death of another by accident or
mistake.” Tex. Penal Code § 49.08(a).
As a matter of Supreme Court precedent, the Texas intoxication
manslaughter statute does not qualify as a “crime of violence” under 18
U.S.C. § 16(a). In Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (2004), the Court observed
that “[t]he critical aspect of § 16(a) is that a crime of violence is one involving
the ‘use . . . of physical force against the person or property of another.’” Id. at
9. That “key phrase in § 16(a) . . . most naturally suggests a higher degree of
intent than negligent or merely accidental conduct.” Id. (emphasis added).
That conclusion confirms that the district court erred here. After all,
the Texas intoxication manslaughter statute does not require a “higher
degree of intent than negligent or merely accidental conduct.” Id. To the
contrary, the statute specifically requires that the defendant cause the death
of another “by accident or mistake.” Tex. Penal Code § 49.08(a).
Accordingly, the Texas statute does not qualify as a “crime of violence”
under 18 U.S.C. § 16(a), as that term was authoritatively construed by the
Court in Leocal.
So the district court was wrong to enter a judgment of conviction and
sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). Indeed, the parties agree that the
court should have sentenced Trujillo under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1), because
he was convicted of a felony other than an aggravated felony, and therefore
subjected him to a statutory maximum sentence of ten years rather than
twenty.
Entering conviction based on § 1326(b)(2) rather than § 1326(b)(1)
can have collateral consequences for the defendant, such as permanent
inadmissibility to the United States. That’s because a conviction for
4
Case: 20-10679 Document: 00515931466 Page: 5 Date Filed: 07/09/2021
No. 20-10679
unlawful reentry following a prior conviction for an aggravated felony under
§ 1326(b)(2) is itself an aggravated felony. See, e.g., United States v. Ovalle-
Garcia, 868 F.3d 313, 314 (5th Cir. 2017). So we have reformed judgments
when district courts have incorrectly entered convictions under § 1326(b)(2)
rather than under § 1326(b)(1). See, e.g., United States v. Godoy, 890 F.3d 531,
541–42 (5th Cir. 2018); United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357,
369 (5th Cir. 2009). And we do so here as well.
III.
Trujillo asks us for more. He asks us to vacate his sentence and
remand so that the district court can consider whether the misclassification
of his conviction influenced its sentencing decision. We decline to do so.
To warrant vacatur, Trujillo must “prove [that] the error affected the
outcome in the district court.” Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d at 369. He
must show that “the record indicate[s] the district court’s sentence was
influenced by an incorrect understanding of the statutory maximum
sentence.” Id.There is no indication anywhere in the record that the sentence
imposed here was influenced in any way by an incorrect understanding of the
statutory maximum sentence. To the contrary, Trujillo concedes that the
district court entered a sentence within the Guidelines range, and below the
statutory maximum of § 1326(b)(1). Moreover, the district court did not even
cite § 1326(b)(2) in its sentencing decision. Rather, the court focused instead
on Trujillo’s repeated violations to justify his seventy-two month sentence.
We have no difficulty, then, concluding that the district court’s error
concerning § 1326(b)(2) did not affect his sentence in any way.
Trujillo nevertheless suggests that we remand so that he can at least
ask the district court whether it might have imposed a different sentence. But
5
Case: 20-10679 Document: 00515931466 Page: 6 Date Filed: 07/09/2021
No. 20-10679
it is Trujillo’s burden on appeal to demonstrate a reasonable probability of a
different result on remand. See, e.g., United States v. Lavalais, 960 F.3d 180,
186 (5th Cir. 2020) (defendant “has the burden to demonstrate that all four
prongs of plain error review are met”). He cannot do so here. So remand is
not warranted. We will not order remand simply because Trujillo hopes to
create a better appellate record.
***
We reform the judgment to reflect conviction and sentencing under 8
U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and affirm the sentence as reformed.
6