I'm happy to be writing about one of my cases today.
In United States v. Ocampo-Estrada, --- F.3d ---, No. 15-50471 (9th Cir. 2017), the Court vacated my client's mandatory-minimum, 20-year sentence (although it affirmed his conspiracy conviction).
The government filed an 851 enhancement before trial, based on Mr. Ocampo's prior conviction under Cal. H&S 11378. As a result, after the conviction, the district court was forced to impose a 20-year sentence for essentially street-level methamphetamine sales.
The principal issue addressed by the Court was whether the government proved up the 851 enhancement at sentencing, because the state-court documents it used to establish the prior 11378 conviction did not specify the drug type. Our argument was that, because the California drug statutes are overbroad compared to their federal counterparts, the mere existence of the 11378 was insufficient to support the federal enhancement without proof of the substance.
The Ninth Circuit agreed. Based on the recent en banc decision in Martinez-Lopez, the Court confirmed that section 11378 was overbroad and divisible. But it concluded the conviction documents did not satisfy the modified-categorical approach and thus vacated the enhanced sentence. The mandatory minimum is now 10 years, rather than 20.
