From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Champegnie

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Jan 29, 1991
925 F.2d 54 (2d Cir. 1991)

Summary

holding intent to reenter United States sufficient mens rea for attempted reentry despite common law's history of requiring specific intent for attempt crimes

Summary of this case from United States v. Macias

Opinion

No. 665, Docket 90-1419.

Submitted January 11, 1991.

Decided January 29, 1991.

Michael L. Hanuszczak, Syracuse, N.Y., for defendant-appellant.

Thomas E. Booth, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C. (Frederick J. Scullin, Jr., U.S. Atty. N.D.N.Y., Craig A. Benedict, Asst. U.S. Atty., Syracuse, N.Y., of counsel), for appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York.

Before WINTER and ALTIMARI, Circuit Judges, and WEXLER, District Judge.

The Hon. Leonard D. Wexler, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.


Stanford Champegnie appeals from a conviction by a jury for violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326, which makes it a felony for an alien who has been previously arrested and deported to reenter the United States without the express consent of the Attorney General. Champegnie also was found guilty of willfully making a false statement to the Immigration and Naturalization Service in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001.

The principal issue on appeal is whether Champegnie was entitled to an instruction that a good faith belief that he had permission to reenter the country constitutes a defense to a charge of violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326. In United States v. Newton, 677 F.2d 16, 17 (2d Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 850, 103 S.Ct. 111, 74 L.Ed.2d 98 (1982), we deferred a decision on that issue. We now hold that a good faith or mistake defense does not exist under Section 1326.

In Newton we followed the Ninth Circuit in holding that the government need not show that a defendant specifically intended to disobey the law in order to prove a violation of Section 1326. Rather, we held that it need prove only that the previously deported alien intended to reenter the United States. See Pena-Cabanillas v. United States, 394 F.2d 785, 789-90 (9th Cir. 1968); see also United States v. Hussein, 675 F.2d 114, 116 (6th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 869, 103 S.Ct. 154, 74 L.Ed.2d 129 (1982); but see United States v. Anton, 683 F.2d 1011 (7th Cir. 1982) (requiring specific intent). It is a short and logical step from that holding to the conclusion that good faith or mistaken belief on such an alien's part that he or she could reenter lawfully is not a defense. See United States v. Espinoza-Leon, 873 F.2d 743, 746 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 109 S.Ct. 3257, 106 L.Ed.2d 602 (1989); United States v. Miranda-Enriquez, 842 F.2d 1211, 1212 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 836, 109 S.Ct. 100, 102 L.Ed.2d 75 (1988). The statute contains no language requiring proof of a particular mental state. It simply states that a previously deported alien may not reenter the United States without the express consent, obtained in advance, of the Attorney General. We read the statute to mean what it says: A previously deported alien who reenters the United States does so at his or her peril, and any subjective belief as to the legality of that act is irrelevant. See Anton, 683 F.2d at 1019 (Posner, J., dissenting).

Champegnie also claims that he was denied due process because two possibly favorable eyewitnesses had been deported and therefore were unavailable to testify at his trial. However, Champegnie failed to make a "plausible showing that the testimony of the deported witnesses would have been material and favorable to his defense" and that "there is a reasonable likelihood that the testimony could have affected the judgment of the trier of fact." United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal, 458 U.S. 858, 873-74, 102 S.Ct. 3440, 3449-50, 73 L.Ed.2d 1193 (1982). The witnesses were Champegnie's companions, and he was in the best position to know the probable content of their testimony. His failure to make a showing as to a need for their testimony thus completely undercuts his claim of an unfair trial.

We have considered Champegnie's other arguments and have concluded they are baseless. The judgment of conviction and sentence is affirmed.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Champegnie

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Jan 29, 1991
925 F.2d 54 (2d Cir. 1991)

holding intent to reenter United States sufficient mens rea for attempted reentry despite common law's history of requiring specific intent for attempt crimes

Summary of this case from United States v. Macias

holding that because `the government need not show that a defendant specifically intended to disobey the law in order to prove a violation" of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 — which makes it a felony for a previously deported alien to reenter the United States without the express permission of the Attorney Genera' — the defendant's "good faith or mistaken belief . . . that she could reenter lawfully is not a defense"

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Project on Government Oversight

holding there is not a good faith or mistake defense to § 1326

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Croitoru

holding that "good faith or mistaken belief on such an alien's part that he or she could reenter lawfully is not a defense [under 8 U.S.C. § 1326]"

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Rodriguez

holding "that a good faith or mistake defense does not exist under Section 1326"

Summary of this case from United States v. Gonzalez-Chavez

affirming conviction for illegally reentering United States after deportation and making false statement to Immigration and Naturalization Service

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Morales-Tovar

rejecting as contrary to the language and legislative purpose of § 1326 the defense of "good faith or mistaken belief on [a previously deported] alien's part that he or she could reenter lawfully"

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Rodriguez

observing that § 1326 “contains no language requiring proof of a particular mental state”

Summary of this case from United States v. Macias

In United States v. Champegnie, 925 F.2d 54 (2d Cir. 1991), the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit unequivocally affirmed the government's position. The court held that a good faith or mistaken belief on the part of an alien that he or she had lawfully reentered the United States is not a defense in a § 1326 prosecution.

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Mancebo-Santiago
Case details for

U.S. v. Champegnie

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE, v. STANFORD CHAMPEGNIE…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

Date published: Jan 29, 1991

Citations

925 F.2d 54 (2d Cir. 1991)

Citing Cases

U.S. v. Rodriguez

In United States v. Champegnie, we held that § 1326 evinces a legislative purpose to attach significant risk…

U.S. v. Torres-Echavarria

The district judge was under no obligation to undertake such an inquiry, however, because "a good faith or…