United States v. Arriaga-Pinon, No. 16-50188 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseDefendant pleaded no contest to unlawful reentry following removal and was sentenced to 18 months in prison. On appeal, defendant challenged his sentence, arguing that, in light of the United States Supreme Court's decision in Mathis v. United States, the district court erred when it applied the modified categorical approach to determine that his 2014 conviction under California Vehicle Code section 10851(a) constituted an aggravated felony. The court explained that it need not reach that question here because, even assuming Duenas-Alvarez v. Holder remains good law, the conviction fails to satisfy the modified categorical test at stage three, and therefore is not a qualifying predicate offense. In this case, in light of United States v. Vidal, the judicially noticable documents did not satisfy the requirements of the modified categorical approach because the record of conviction did not establish that he was actually convicted of a qualifying aggravated felony theft offense. Accordingly, the court agreed with defendant's alternative argument, vacating the sentence and remanding for resentencing.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel vacated a sentence and remanded for resentencing in a case in which the defendant challenged the district court’s determination that his prior conviction under California Vehicle Code section 10851(a) constituted an aggravated felony. The defendant contended that Duenas-Alvarez v. Holder, 733 F.3d 812 (9th Cir. 2013), which held that section 10851(a) is a divisible statute such that the modified categorical approach applies, must be overruled because United States v. Mathis, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016), compels the conclusion that the statute is indivisible. The panel wrote that it did not need to reach that question because even assuming Duenas-Alvarez remains good law, the conviction fails to satisfy the modified categorical test and therefore is not a qualifying predicate offense. The panel explained that United States v. Vidal, 504 F.3d 1072 (1997) (en banc), compels the conclusion that the judicially noticeable documents in this case are not sufficient to establish whether the defendant – who, in the plea colloquy, pled no contest to what the court described as “unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle in violation of Vehicle Code Section 10851(a)” – was convicted as a principal or as an accessory after the fact. Concurring, Chief Judge Thomas wrote that although there was no need in this case to reach the issue whether UNITED STATES V. ARRIAGA-PINON 3 Duenas-Alvarez remained good law, Mathis has altered the legal landscape and requires this court, at the appropriate time, to re-examine its jurisprudence as to the divisibility of section 10851(a).
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.