Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Sufficiency of Evidence

By: Derek Hawkins//November 15, 2021//

Sufficiency of Evidence

By: Derek Hawkins//November 15, 2021//

Listen to this article

7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: United States of America v. Alejandro Campos-Rivera

Case No.: 19-3214

Officials: SYKES, Chief Judge, and HAMILTON and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Sufficiency of Evidence

A grand jury indicted Alejandro Campos-Rivera for unlawfully reentering the United States after removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He was initially represented by an assistant federal public defender, but counsel moved to withdraw at Campos-Rivera’s request based on an irreconcilable conflict between the two. The motion was granted, and a new lawyer was appointed.

Campos-Rivera then filed a half-dozen pro se motions raising issues that his new attorney declined to pursue. The district judge told him that he could not proceed pro se and through counsel. Campos-Rivera asked the judge to dismiss his attorney and appoint a third. The judge declined to do so, explaining that a disagreement about motion strategy did not justify the appointment of yet another attorney. The judge gave Campos-Rivera a choice: move forward with his current lawyer or proceed pro se. Campos-Rivera chose the latter.

The judge then addressed and denied the pro se motions. The case proceeded to a bench trial on stipulated facts, and the judge found Campos-Rivera guilty. His appeal focuses on the judge’s refusal to appoint a third lawyer and the sufficiency of the evidence on the intent element of the crime.

We affirm. The judge was right: a disagreement between attorney and client over pretrial motions is not grounds for the appointment of a new attorney. In any event, Campos-Rivera validly waived his right to counsel; the judge conducted a comprehensive waiver colloquy to ensure that the decision was fully informed and voluntary. And Campos-Rivera’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence fails for two reasons. First, § 1326(a) is a general-intent crime. The government need only prove that the defendant knowingly reentered the United States, not that he intended to do so unlawfully. The stipulated facts support an inference of knowing reentry—indeed, that is the only reasonable inference here. Second, Campos-Rivera complains that the judge failed to make a specific factual finding regarding the intent element. But no such finding was necessary. In a bench trial, a general finding of guilt suffices unless a party asks for specific findings of fact. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 23(c). Campos-Rivera did not make that request, so the judge’s general finding of guilt sufficed.

Affirmed

Full Text


Derek A Hawkins is Corporate Counsel, at Salesforce.

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests