United States v. Joaquin Arambula-Alvarado

Arambula-Alvarado was convicted of two counts of violation of the immigration laws. He was convicted of illegal entry ( 8 U.S.C. § 1325 ) and sentenced as a felon under that statute, and he was convicted of having reentered this country after having been deported ( 8 U.S.C. § 1326 ).

There was more than sufficient evidence to support the conviction of violation of Section 1325. There is, however, merit in appellant’s contention that the evidence did not support the imposition of a felony sentence. That statute provides that “for a subsequent commission” of violation of Section 1325, the defendant shall be guilty of a felony and sentenced accordingly. Title 8, United States Code, Section 1325 , provides:

The difficulty is in the use of the word “commission.” In this case, the government did not prove there was a prior “conviction.” We read the statute narrowly, in favor of the accused, as we must do. United States v. Laub, 385 U.S. 475 , 87 S.Ct. 574 , 17 L.Ed.2d 526 (1966); United States v. Patterson, 664 F.2d 1346 (9th Cir. 1982). Absent proof of a former “conviction,” the appellant should not have been given a felony sentence.

Appellant also attacks his conviction of…