United States v. Alejandro Campos-Rivera

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · October 7, 2021 · No. No. 19-3214

Summary

In this published Seventh Circuit decision, the court affirmed a conviction for illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), holding that a disagreement over pretrial motion strategy does not justify appointment of a third attorney and that the district court properly conducted a waiver colloquy when the defendant chose to proceed pro se. The court also held that § 1326(a) is a general-intent crime requiring only knowing reentry, not intent to reenter unlawfully, and that in a bench trial a general finding of guilt suffices absent a request for specific findings under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 23(c).

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Writing for the Court
Sykes; Hamilton; Scudder
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decision date
October 7, 2021
Docket number
No. 19-3214
Procedural posture
Appeal from conviction for illegal reentry after bench trial on stipulated facts.
Standard of review
Abuse of discretion for denial of substitution of counsel; 'nearly insurmountable' burden for sufficiency of evidence, viewing record in light most favorable to prosecution.
Precedential value
Published
Parties
Alejandro Campos-Rivera v. United States of America
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

criminal procedureright to counselimmigrationevidencestandard of review

Practice areas

criminal lawappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the request for a third attorney.
  2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for illegal reentry, specifically regarding the intent element.

Holdings

  1. The district court did not abuse its discretion because the disagreement between attorney and client over motion strategy did not constitute a total breakdown in communication preventing an adequate defense, and the court's inquiry was adequate.
  2. The evidence was sufficient because illegal reentry is a general-intent crime; the government needed only to prove knowing reentry, and the stipulated facts support that inference. Additionally, no specific factual finding on intent was required because the defendant did not request specific findings under Rule 23(c).

Key quotations

Disagreements over case strategy are not grounds for the appointment of new counsel. (7)
Illegal reentry is a general-intent crime: the government must prove that the defendant knowingly reentered the country but need not prove that he intended to do so unlawfully. (8)
In a bench trial, the judge is not required to make specific factual findings unless a party requests them. (9)

Factual background

Campos-Rivera is a native and citizen of Mexico. He was convicted of two state felonies in Illinois in 2011, removed in May 2012, but later reentered the United States without permission. He was apprehended in Wheaton, Illinois on October 19, 2018.

Procedural history

Campos-Rivera was indicted for illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He was initially represented by a federal defender, then a private lawyer after a conflict. He filed pro se motions, and after the district court declined to appoint a third attorney, he chose to proceed pro se. The court denied his motions, and after a bench trial on stipulated facts, he was found guilty. He appealed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…