United States v. Trujillo

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2021 · Evidence

EvidenceIllegal reentryAggravated felonyCrime of violencePlain error8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1)8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2)8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F)

Facts

Trujillo, a Mexican citizen, had a 1995 Texas conviction for intoxication manslaughter under Tex. Penal Code § 49.08(a) and was later removed from the United States. After returning and later being arrested again, he was indicted for illegal reentry, and both the indictment and PSR stated he faced a 20-year maximum under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). He pleaded guilty, did not object to the PSR or sentence, and received a 72-month within-Guidelines sentence. The legal dispute on appeal was whether the prior Texas conviction qualified as an aggravated felony because it was a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 16(a).

Issue

Does Texas intoxication manslaughter under Tex. Penal Code § 49.08(a) qualify as a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 16(a), such that illegal reentry may be punished under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) rather than § 1326(b)(1)? If not, did the district court's error require vacatur and remand for resentencing under plain-error review?

Rule

A prior offense qualifies as a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 16(a) only if it has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against another and, under Leocal, that phrase most naturally requires a higher degree of intent than negligent or merely accidental conduct. Where a statute specifically requires causing death by accident or mistake, it does not satisfy § 16(a). On plain-error review, resentencing is not warranted unless the defendant shows the record indicates the district court's sentence was influenced by the incorrect statutory maximum.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Luis Mendoza was prosecuted in federal court in Houston for unlawful reentry after removal. The government sought the 20-year maximum under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) based on Luis's earlier Texas conviction for intoxication manslaughter under Tex. Penal Code § 49.08(a).

Which is the strongest argument about whether the prior Texas conviction supports treatment under § 1326(b)(2)?

Explanation. Under the majority's rule, an offense is a crime of violence under § 16(a) only if it has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against another, and that phrase most naturally requires a higher degree of intent than negligent or merely accidental conduct. Texas intoxication manslaughter fails because the statute expressly requires causing death "by accident or mistake." So it cannot serve as the aggravated-felony predicate for § 1326(b)(2). (Derived from United States v. Trujillo (n.d.).)