United States v. Navarro
| Decision Date | 23 November 2022 |
| Docket Number | 19-50662 |
| Citation | 54 F.4th 268 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. John David NAVARRO, Defendant—Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Mara Asya Blatt, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney's Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Bradford W. Bogan, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Maureen Scott Franco, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender's Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before Smith, Barksdale, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
In 1998, John Navarro pleaded guilty of attempted sexual assault of a minor in Colorado. In 2013, Navarro moved to Texas. In 2019, law enforcement discovered that Navarro was not registered as a sex offender in Texas and arrested him. Navarro pleaded guilty of failing to register as required by the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act ("SORNA"), a crime under 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a). He completed his term of imprisonment but violated the terms of his supervised release twice and is serving an 11-month revocation sentence.
Navarro claims that his guilty plea for failing to register as a sex offender was insufficient as a matter of law because in 2019 he did not have an obligation to register as a sex offender. Agreeing, we vacate the conviction and remand.
Over twenty years ago, Navarro was convicted of a sex offense in Colorado. State police received disturbing reports from child services in October 1997 and, after investigating further, they arrested Navarro on the suspicion that he had engaged in sexual contact with his two younger half-brothers. Once he was in custody, he waived his Miranda rights and signed a confession. Navarro admitted that he inappropriately touched his half-brothers’ genitals and pressured one of them to perform sexual acts on him. Navarro was nineteen at the time; his siblings were around six and eight. He pleaded guilty of attempted sexual assault of a child under COLO. REV. STAT. § 18-3-405 (1998). He was sentenced to three years in prison, beginning July 22, 1998. He served his term of imprisonment.
In 2013, Navarro moved to Odessa, Texas.1 At no point did he register as a sex offender with the county sex registration office or otherwise. In January 2019, a Deputy U.S. Marshal was notified that Navarro was living and working in the state. After confirming that Navarro had been convicted in Colorado of a criminal sexual offense, the Marshals’ Office sought and obtained an arrest warrant. Authorities discovered Navarro at a detention center in Odessa, where he was being held on an out-of-state warrant from Colorado. After he was transferred into federal custody, Navarro was indicted on one count of failure to register as a sex offender under § 2250(a).
With the advice of counsel, Navarro entered a voluntary guilty plea before a magistrate judge. The plea was accompanied by a short, one-page document laying out the factual basis for the plea. The document noted Navarro's conviction for a sex offense, his move to Texas, and his failure to register with the state. The district court accepted his guilty plea.
At sentencing, the court adopted the recommendations in the presentence report. According to the report, Navarro's base offense level was 14, which applies "if the defendant was required to register as a Tier II offender" under SORNA. U.S.S.G. § 2A3.5(a)(2) & n.1. Combining that base offense level with Navarro's criminal history, the guideline range was 15–21 months’ imprisonment and 5 years’ supervised release. The court sentenced Navarro to 21 months and to 5 years of supervised release.
Navarro filed a timely notice of appeal, but COVID extensions and issues with Navarro's appellate counsel delayed briefing and oral argument. In the meantime, Navarro completed his prison sentence.
Since then, Navarro has violated the terms of his supervised release twice. The second violation occurred in 2022, when he failed to participate in a required sex offender treatment program. In May 2022, he was given an 11-month revocation sentence with no supervised release. He continues to challenge his original § 2250(a) conviction while he serves his term of imprisonment. He asks this court to vacate the underlying conviction and end his resultant revocation sentence.
A guilty plea must be supported by a sufficient factual basis. FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(b)(3). "[T]he factual conduct admitted by the defendant" must be "sufficient as a matter of law to establish a violation of the statute to which he entered his plea." United States v. Trejo , 610 F.3d 308, 313 (5th Cir. 2010) (emphasis removed).
Because Navarro challenges the basis of his guilty plea for the first time on appeal, we review for plain error. See United States v. Escajeda , 8 F.4th 423, 426 (5th Cir. 2021) ; FED. R. CRIM. P. 52(b). We first analyze whether the facts accompanying Navarro's plea were sufficient to establish guilt under § 2250(a) "as a matter of law." Trejo , 610 F.3d at 313 (emphasis removed). Concluding the factual basis was insufficient, we then consider whether that was plain error.
Section 2250(a) has three elements. First, an individual must be a "sex offender" who is "required to register under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act." § 2250(a)(1), (2)(A). Second, he must travel in interstate commerce. § 2250(a)(2)(B). Third, he must "knowingly fail[ ] to register or update a registration as required by [SORNA]." § 2250(a)(3).
Navarro's central contention is that he did not have a duty to register as a sex offender under the first prong of § 2250(a). Yet our circuit has not been precise about which law determines a sex offender's duty to register. Sex offender registries are governed by a combination of state and federal law, and Texas and SORNA set different registration requirements. This case requires us to decide whether SORNA (federal law) or Texas (state law) defined Navarro's duty to register.
Navarro maintains that both state and federal law are relevant. In his view, § 2250(a) requires the government to prove that he had an obligation to register under SORNA and under Texas law. In its initial briefing, the United States did not contest that premise, insisting instead that both SORNA and Texas law required Navarro to register. Yet after the briefs were filed (and before oral argument), the United States conceded that Navarro had no obligation to register under Texas state law.2 Because the government agreed with Navarro's framing that a state-law duty to register was a necessary component of § 2250(a), it moved to vacate the conviction and remand; it moved separately for an expedited ruling on the motion to vacate. Navarro—for obvious reasons—did not oppose the motions. This panel carried both motions with the case and heard oral argument as scheduled.
Despite the parties’ agreement that Navarro's conviction should be vacated, we are not bound to grant their requested relief on that basis.3 Notably, the United States has not abandoned its position that Navarro had a duty to register as a sex offender under SORNA. Instead, it contends that even if Navarro was obligated to register under SORNA, the fact that he had no state-level duty to register is sufficient to vacate a § 2250(a) conviction. But that conclusion does not follow from the statute and the caselaw. We write especially to clarify the law in this regard.
The government's concession raises a narrow but nonetheless critical issue of first impression for this circuit: Is a conviction under § 2250(a) insufficient merely because the defendant had no duty to register as a sex offender under state law?
We conclude that the answer to the question is "no." Section 2250(a) makes criminal the failure to register under the federal SORNA. States are free to impose stronger or weaker registration requirements on sex offenders, but whether an individual complies with state law has no bearing on whether he has discharged his SORNA obligations. Thus, the United States's admission that Navarro had no duty to register under state law is not enough to render his conviction ipso facto invalid.
Whether a person has an obligation to register as a sex offender under § 2250(a) is determined by federal law. Section 2250(a) is clear about which law applies—it incorporates SORNA by reference three separate times.4 It states in no uncertain terms that individuals are guilty of the offense if they are "required to register under [SORNA]" and fail to do so. § 2250(a). SORNA, in turn, lays out a complex regime for who must register as a sex offender and for how long, depending on the nature of an individual's sex offense. See 34 U.S.C. §§ 20911 –15.
Yet the parties put a critical gloss on the statutory scheme. They insist that an individual cannot be convicted under § 2250(a) unless he had both an obligation to register as a sex offender under SORNA and an obligation to register under state law.
That interpretation has no basis in the statutory text. Neither § 2250(a) nor SORNA refers to a state's registration requirements. SORNA applies to "sex offender[s]," a term defined by federal statute. See §§ 20911(1), 20913(a). Those offenders are required to "register, and keep the registration current, in each jurisdiction" where they "reside[ ]." § 20913(a). SORNA also specifies when the obligation to register begins and when it ends, depending on what kind of sex crime the offender committed. See §§ 20913(b), 20915. To put it another way: SORNA establishes of its own force who must register, where they must register, and for how long they must register. Failure to follow any of those rules is a federal crime. § 2250(a). A state may impose differing obligations on sex offenders, but that has no impact on whether an individual is "required to register under [SORNA]." Id.
Navarro points out that SORNA does not create a national sex...
To continue reading
Request your trial