Page 33 - TPA Journal Sept Oct 2021
P. 33

searches of computers and cell phones.”  We therefore  insufficient. Neither argument has merit, and we affirm.
        agree with the district court that the good faith
        exception to the exclusionary rule applies to the forensic  In June 2017,  Avalos-Sanchez and several others
        search of Aguilar’s phone, and we affirm the district  attempted to rob a
        court’s denial of Aguilar’s motion to suppress.      McAllen, Texas residence. Avalos-Sanchez and his crew
                                                             “believed that
        To sum up: the only issue presented in this appeal is  hundreds of pounds of marijuana and/or over five
        whether the district court erred in denying  Aguilar’s  kilograms of cocaine were
        motion to suppress the information obtained from the  being stored at the private residence,” and they intended
        forensic border search of his cell phone.  And because  to obtain by force,
        the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies  and then distribute, those controlled substances.  The
        to the forensic search of Aguilar’s phone, the district  plan was
        court did not err in denying  Aguilar’s motion to    straightforward: Some of the crew would enter the home
        suppress. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court  to steal the
        is, in all respects, AFFIRMED.                       controlled substances at gunpoint, while  Avalos-
                                                             Sanchez and others would
        U.S. v. Aguilar, Jr., No. 19-40554, 5th Cir., Sept. 02,  watch for law enforcement. But the June 6 robbery went
        2020.                                                sideways; the crew
        ********************************************         had hit the wrong house. Instead of fleeing, the robbers
                                                             held the four
        FEDERAL ROBBERY ELEMENTS                             occupants at gunpoint and stole $700 cash and two cell
                                                             phones.
        Alfredo  Avalos-Sanchez served as lookout during an
        armed home invasion gone awry. The plan was to steal  The next day, some of the crew—not including Avalos-
        drugs and money from a known drug dealer. But Avalos-  Sanchez—ran
        Sanchez and his crew invaded the wrong house. Instead  the same play and tried to rob the correct residence. The
        of hightailing it, as some might have done,1 they robbed  crew never made it
        the four non-drug-dealing occupants anyway.  Avalos-  to the front door. They encountered law enforcement on
        Sanchez pleaded guilty to, and was convicted of,     their way.
        interference with interstate commerce by robbery, in  A grand jury issued a four-count indictment against
        violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a). The  Avalos-Sanchez
        district court sentenced Avalos-Sanchez to 87 months in  and several other defendants involved in the June 6
        prison.                                              robbery and the June 7
                                                             attempted robbery. Count  Three of the indictment
        1 See Jenna Laine, Bad House Call: Buccaneers’ Tom   charged Avalos-Sanchez
        Brady Mistakenly Enters Wrong Home, ESPN (Apr. 23,   with violating the Hobbs Act:
        2020),https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/29086979/b
        uccaneers-tom-brady-mistakenly-enters-wrong-home     On or about April 24, 2017 through June 7, 2017, . . .
        (“Brady immediately apologized before darting out the  [Avalos-Sanchez] did unlawfully obstruct, delay, and
        door.”).                                             affect commerce and the movement of articles and
        Avalos-Sanchez challenges his guilty-plea conviction  commodities in commerce by robbery and attempt to
        and sentence on two grounds: (1) that the factual basis  obstruct, delay, and affect commerce and the movement
        for his guilty plea was insufficient, in violation of  of articles and commodities in commerce by robbery, as
        Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, because the   the terms robbery and commerce are defined in Title 18,
        Government failed to establish the commerce element  United States Code, Section 1951(b), in that the
        of the Hobbs Act robbery charge; and (2) that his guilty  defendants did unlawfully take and attempted to take
        plea was not knowing and voluntary, in violation of the  controlled substances and drug proceeds from
        Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, because   individuals against their will by means of actual or
        he did not know the factual basis for his guilty plea was  threatened force, violence, or fear of immediate or




        Sept./Oct.  2021         www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140                         29
   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38