United States v. Martin Castro-Aviles
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
A defendant facing the determination of a sentence for a violation of supervised release has a right to present mitigating evidence on his own behalf. United States v. Diaz-Burgos, 601 F.2d 983, 985-86 (9th Cir.1979) (per curiam); Fed.R.Crim.P. 32.1(b)(2)(E). Here, Castro-Aviles’s mitigating evidence — which counsel asserts the district court ignored — was that his mental condition when he attempted for a second time illegally to cross the border was substantially impaired by a serious illness. Counsel argues that he was not able “to think for himself.”
Contrary to counsel’s assertions, the record demonstrates that Castro-Aviles was adequately allowed to present his mitigating evidence. He did so in his counsel’s thorough sentencing memorandum, which was supported by relevant medical reports and a transcript containing, in translation from Spanish to English, the material parts of a recorded conversation purportedly corroborating his assertions of his confused and disoriented mental state at the time of the violation. Moreover, counsel extensively argued this point and his supporting evidence without interruption during the sentencing hearing.