United States v. Martinez-Espinoza.
Nos. 23-2139 & 23-2140. 8/2/2024. D.N.M. Judge Murphy. Reentry of a Removed Alien—Revocation of Supervised Release—Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C)—Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(b).
August 2, 2024
US Border Patrol agents found Martinez-Espinoza with 15 other individuals in New Mexico. He admitted that he is a Mexican citizen and lacked legal authorization to enter or remain in the United States. Agents determined that Martinez-Espinoza was first removed or deported from the United States in 1992, and since then he has committed 11 other reentry-related offenses, in addition to the instant case. When he was detained in the instant case by US Border Control, Martinez-Espinoza was on supervised release for a 2019 illegal reentry conviction. Martinez-Espinoza was charged with and pleaded guilty to one count of reentry of a removed alien, and corresponding petition to revoke his supervised release was also filed. Martinez-Espinoza entered into a written plea agreement pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) that included a two-level downward departure under US Sentencing Guidelines (USSG) § 5K3.1.1, which could be triggered only if his criminal history category fell below VI. Based on his lengthy history of recidivism, the presentence investigation report (PSR) calculated his criminal history category at VI and recommended that the departure not apply. The district court confirmed the PSR’s guidelines calculation and rejected his plea agreement accordingly. It then credited Martinez-Espinoza with admitting to his supervised release violation and sentenced him to 41 months’ imprisonment for both offenses.
On appeal, Martinez-Espinoza argued that the district court plainly erred by not informing him of his post-plea rejection rights under Rule 11(c)(5) because the error affected his ability to offer a knowing and voluntary plea. Under Rule 11(c)(5)(B)–(C), after a plea rejection, a court must advise the defendant that it is not required to follow the plea agreement and, as a result, the defendant may withdraw the plea or plead guilty and risk receiving a higher sentence. Here, all parties agreed the district court plainly erred by not informing Martinez-Espinoza of his choices under Rule 11(c)(5). However, Martinez-Espinoza did not show that there was a causal link between his decision-making process and the district court’s error. And the record demonstrates that the magistrate judge had previously advised him of his Rule 11(c)(5) rights, so he was fully informed about his post-plea rejection options. Therefore, Martinez-Espinoza’s substantial rights were not affected by the court’s failure to comply with Rule 11(c)(5), and there was no reversible plain error.
Martinez-Espinoza also argued that the court erred by not following the revocation hearing procedures in Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(b). Rule 32.1(b)(2) requires a district court to hold a supervised release revocation hearing within a reasonable time, unless the defendant waives such hearing. Here, Martinez-Espinoza agreed with the district court that a colloquy on the revocation petition was unnecessary, without the government having presented evidence on the issue. Further, he did not object when the district court explicitly credited him with admitting to the violation before sentencing him, and he apologized for reentering in a personal statement during sentencing and said he would not return to the United States. The record therefore demonstrates that Martinez-Espinoza was fully aware of the government’s claims supporting revocation; and while Martinez-Espinoza did not openly admit guilt to his supervised release violation in court, the totality of the evidence demonstrates he effectively did. Accordingly, Martinez-Espinoza admitted to violating his supervised release, so a hearing under Rule 32.1(b) was not required, and the district court did not err.
The judgment was affirmed.
The full opinion is available at https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010111089260.pdf.