United States v. Corona-Verduzco, No. 19-2440 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
On appeal, defendant argued for the first time that the district court failed to inquire about his past convictions, claiming prejudice because, by his interpretation of the First Step Act of 2018, he has only one conviction, not two.
The Eighth Circuit first held that defendant did not waive his right to a 21 U.S.C. 851(b) inquiry. The court also held that, because defendant received and served "a term of imprisonment of more than 12 months" for two serious drug felonies—even though he served them concurrently—he has two, not one prior convictions. The court explained that a section 851(b) inquiry would not have changed his mandatory minimum, and a section 851(b) error is harmless. The court also held that the rule of lenity does not apply here. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment.
Court Description: [Benton, Author, with Smith Chief Judge, and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law - Criminal law. In this First Step Act proceeding, defendant did not waive his right to a 21 U.S.C. Sec. 851(b) inquiry; defendant received and served a term of imprisonment of more than 12 months for two serious drug felonies - even though he served them concurrently - and, as a result had two, not one prior convictions; a Section 851(b) inquiry would not have changed his mandatory minimum, and the failure to conduct the 851(b) inquiry was harmless error.
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.