United States v. Ralph Perez Dominguez

Good Law
2003 Daily Journal DAR 749·316 F.3d 1054·2003 WL 139527·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 606·2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 855
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 21, 200302-10106California1,504 words

Opinion

Opinion

Tallman, J.

We allocate to a defendant the burden of proving that a prior conviction was unconstitutional when a defendant challenges the use of the prior conviction in ealculat-ing a later sentence under the federal Sentencing Guidelines. Because the burden of establishing the constitutionality of prior convictions was improperly assigned to the government in this case, we vacate the district court’s sentence and remand for further proceedings.

I

Ralph Perez Dominguez pled guilty to one count of a nine-count indictment: possession with intent to distribute 100 to 1,000 kilograms of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1), (b)(l)(B)(vii). Dominguez entered his guilty plea pursuant to a written plea agreement. The plea agreement stated: “This agreement is expressly conditioned on the defendant’s criminal history falling within Category I of the Sentencing Guidelines. If the defendant’s criminal history exceeds Category I, the government reserves its right to withdraw from the plea agreement.” After receiving Dominguez’s guilty plea, the district court ordered the preparation of a Pre-sentence Report.

The Presentence Report stated that Dominguez had three prior…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.