Background
Cesar Delgado appealed his conviction and sentence for illegally reentering the United States in violation of Section eight thousand three hundred twenty-six of Title eight of the United States Code. The district court had sentenced him to fifty-one months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release after finding he had been previously removed following a conviction for a non-aggravated felony. Delgado argued that this sentence violated the Fifth and Sixth Amendments because the fact of his prior conviction increased the penalty, yet his indictment did not allege the prior felony and he did not admit to it.
The court’s reasoning
The court noted that Delgado conceded his argument was foreclosed by the Supreme Court decision in Almendarez-Torres versus United States. The court cited United States versus Pervis and the recent decision in Erlinger versus United States, which described Almendarez-Torres as a narrow exception permitting judges to find only the fact of a prior conviction. Consequently, the court found summary affirmance appropriate.
What it means going forward
The ruling reinforces that prior convictions used to enhance sentences for illegal reentry do not require jury findings or indictment allegations under current Fifth Circuit and Supreme Court precedent.