United States v. Martinez, No. 13-3175 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to being found in the United States after committing a felony and being deported. The court joined its sister circuits and held that a district court performing a modified categorical analysis to determine whether a prior state conviction qualifies for a sentencing enhancement may not rely upon allegations in a superceded indictment to which the defendant did not plead guilty. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's determination that defendant's Arizona conviction for solicitation to commit "misconduct involving weapons" qualifies as a firearms offense under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(iii).
Court Description: Criminal Case - Sentence. District court's determination through use of the modified categorical approach that prior state conviction for solicitation to commit misconduct involving weapons qualifies as a firearms offense under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(iii) is reversed. The Arizona statute at issue was textually divisible between qualifying and nonqualifying convictions but Martinez did not plead guilty to, nor was convicted of, a violation of a qualifying subsection of the statute; he was convicted of an "amended"charge and the judgment of conviction and plea agreement did not specify the statutory subsection. The modified categorical approach does not permit the sentencing court to look at an indictment to discover what the defendant actually did. The elements-based approach prohibits reliance on the forfeiture of the weapon as part of the plea agreement as evidence of possession because he was not convicted of possession. The sentence is vacated and the case remanded for resentencing.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.