United States of America v. Ignacio Leyva-Frayre

Dallas, Texas criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with felony reentry of the United States.

Ignacio Leyva-Frayre ("Appellant”) pled guilty to three separate instances of driving while intoxicated ("DWI”) in December 2004, May 2014, and May 2021. In Texas, the third DWI is a felony. Tx. Penal Code § 49.09(b)(2).

Appellant, who is a citizen of Mexico, was subsequently ordered removed from the United States on July 14, 2021. Roughly one year later, on July 1, 2022, he was arrested and charged with yet another DWI in Texas, to which

he again pled guilty and was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment. Appellant was also charged with and pled guilty to illegal reentry after removal, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).



At sentencing, the district court adopted the Presentence Report's recommendation of two separate level enhancements for Appellant's prior DWI convictions, pursuant to U.S.S.G. §§ 2L1.2(b)(2)(B) and (b)(3)(B). U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 states, in part:



(b)(2) If, before the defendant was ordered deported or ordered removed from the United States for the first time, the defendant engaged in criminal conduct that, at any time, resulted in—



(B) a conviction for a felony offense (other than an illegal reentry offense) for which the sentence imposed was two years or more, increase by 8 levels[.]



(b)(3) If, after the defendant was ordered deported or ordered

removed from the United States for the first time, the

defendant engaged in criminal conduct that, at any time,

resulted in—



(B) a conviction for a felony offense (other than an illegal

reentry offense) for which the sentence imposed was two years

or more, increase by 8 levels.



The first enhancement, for the 2021 felony DWI before Appellant's removal,

increased the offense level by eight. See U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(2)(B). The

second enhancement, for the 2022 felony DWI after Appellant's illegal

reentry, added another eight levels. See U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(3)(B). After

reductions for acceptance of responsibility, the district court calculated an

offense level of twenty-one, with a recommended sentencing range of fifty-

seven to seventy-one months. Ultimately, Appellant was sentenced to thirty-

seven months imprisonment, after a twenty-month credit for time-served in

state custody.

Affirmed