U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Deported Alien’s Conviction for Attempting to Reenter the United States
Juan Resendiz-Ponce, A Mexican citizen, was convicted of attempting to reenter the United States after having been deported. He tried to have his conviction overturned by arguing that the Federal Government failed to properly inform him of the charges against him prior to his trial. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the indictment against him was sufficient. See the case, United States v. Resendiz-Ponce, Case No. 05‑998 (Decided January 9, 2007).
In 2003, Resendiz-Ponce had walked up to a port of entry and displayed a photo ID belonging to his cousin. He told the agent he was a legal resident traveling to Calexio, California. Because he did not resemble the photo ID, Resendiz-Ponce was taken into custody. He was charged with violating Federal law against reentry by a deported alien. See Title 8, Section 1326 of the United States Code.
The Government’s indictment against him was poorly written, saying no more than that Resendiz-Ponce had “knowingly and intentionally attempted” to reenter the United States near San Luis, Arizona on June 1, 2003, after having been deported. He was convicted of attempted reentry. On appeal, Resendiz-Ponce argued that because the indictment was faulty, the trial court should have dismissed his case. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned his conviction and the Government appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Resendiz-Ponce argued to the Supreme Court that the indictment should be thrown out because it failed to state what overt act he had taken. The Supreme Court pointed out that someone could be convicted of the crime of attempt if he (1) intends to commit an actual crime and (2) makes an overt act that constitutes a substantial step toward completing the offense. The Government argued that it was enough to state, in the indictment that Resendiz-Ponce had “attempted” to enter the United States.
The Supreme Court agreed with the Government, saying an indictment merely needs to enable a defendant to plead guilty or not guilty. Here the indictment informed Resendiz-Ponce that he was charged with attempting to reenter the country on a certain date, at a certain place. The Court said informing him of the crime of which he was accused and the time and place of the crime were enough for Resendiz-Ponce to enter a plea. His appeal was rejected by the Court.