Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jose Alberto Resendez-Hernandez pleaded guilty to unlawfully reentering the United States and aiding and abetting the assault of correctional officers. The district court imposed respective prison terms of 24 months and 48 months and ordered them to run consecutively.
In the consolidated appeals, Resendez-Hernandez argued that his assault guilty plea was unknowing and involuntary because the district court used facts beyond the indictment and his admissions to increase the advisory Guidelines range. He also challenged findings supporting sentencing enhancements for use of a dangerous weapon and injuries sustained by the correctional officers.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit dismissed the challenge to the assault guilty plea. Resendez-Hernandez had expressly limited his notice of appeal below to his “Sentence Only,” thereby abandoning any challenge to his conviction despite the rule that notices of appeal are liberally construed.
The court affirmed the sentences. It held that Resendez-Hernandez was accountable for his codefendants’ reasonably foreseeable conduct and that a sock containing a hard object, when swung at a person’s head, qualified as a dangerous weapon. The court also rejected his characterization of the injury ruling: the district court did not find “serious bodily injury,” but properly applied a four-level increase because the injuries fell between “bodily injury” and “serious bodily injury.” One officer required stitches for a head laceration, while another was kicked and punched until his face became red and swollen.
Key Takeaways
- A notice of appeal expressly limited to the sentence does not preserve a challenge to the underlying conviction or guilty plea.
- A defendant may be held accountable under the Guidelines for reasonably foreseeable conduct by codefendants, including their use of a dangerous weapon.
- Injuries falling between “bodily injury” and “serious bodily injury” may support the four-level increase under U.S.S.G. § 2A2.2(b)(3)(D).
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that the wording of a criminal defendant’s notice of appeal can foreclose review of a conviction even when the defendant later attacks the validity of the plea. Defense counsel should ensure that the notice encompasses every ruling the defendant intends to challenge.
The opinion also illustrates the fact-specific breadth of the Guidelines’ dangerous-weapon and bodily-injury provisions, particularly where jointly undertaken conduct and injuries more substantial than ordinary bodily injury affect the advisory sentencing range.