United States v. Deleon

Decision Date05 March 2018
Docket NumberNo. CR 15–4268 JB,CR 15–4268 JB
Citation318 F.Supp.3d 1272
Parties UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Angel DELEON, Joe Lawrence Gallegos, Edward Troup, a.k.a. "Huero Troup," Leonard Lujan, Billy Garcia, a.k.a. "Wild Bill," Eugene Martinez, a.k.a. "Little Guero," Allen Patterson, Christopher Chavez, a.k.a. "Critter," Javier Alonso, a.k.a. "Wineo," Arturo Arnulfo Garcia, a.k.a. "Shotgun," Benjamin Clark, a.k.a. "Cyclone," Ruben Hernandez; Jerry Armenta, a.k.a. "Creeper," Jerry Montoya, a.k.a. "Boxer," Mario Rodriguez, a.k.a. "Blue," Timothy Martinez, a.k.a. "Red," Mauricio Varela, a.k.a. "Archie," a.k.a. "Hog Nuts," Daniel Sanchez, a.k.a. "Dan Dan," Gerald Archuleta, a.k.a. "Styx," a.k.a. "Grandma," Conrad Villegas, a.k.a. "Chitmon," Anthony Ray Baca, a.k.a. "Pup," Robert Martinez, a.k.a. "Baby Rob," Roy Paul Martinez, a.k.a. "Shadow," Christopher Garcia, Carlos Herrera, a.k.a. "Lazy," Rudy Perez, a.k.a. "Ru Dog," Andrew Gallegos, a.k.a. "Smiley," Santos Gonzalez; Paul Rivera, Shauna Gutierrez, and Brandy Rodriguez, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of New Mexico

James D. Tierney, First Assistant United States Attorney, Maria Ysabel Armijo, Randy M. Castellano, Matthew Beck, Assistant United States Attorneys, United States Attorney's Office, Las Cruces, New Mexico, Attorneys for the Plaintiff.

Richard Sindel, Sindel, Sindel & Noble, P.C., Clayton, Missouri and Brock Benjamin, Benjamin Law Firm, El Paso, Texas, Attorneys for Defendant Joe Lawrence Gallegos.

Patrick J. Burke, Patrick J. Burke, P.C., Denver, Colorado and Cori Ann Harbour–Valdez, The Harbour Law Firm, P.C., El Paso, Texas, Attorneys for Defendant Edward Troup.

Russel Dean Clark, Las Cruces, New Mexico, Attorney for Defendant Leonard Lujan.

James A. Castle, Castle & Castle, P.C., Denver, Colorado and Robert R. Cooper, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Attorneys for Defendant Billy Garcia.

Douglas E. Couleur, Douglas E. Couleur, P.A., Santa Fe, New Mexico, Attorneys for Defendant Eugene Martinez.

Phillip A. Linder, The Linder Firm, Dallas, Texas and Jeffrey C. Lahann, Las Cruces, New Mexico, Attorneys for Defendant Allen Patterson.

John L. Granberg, Granberg Law Office, El Paso, Texas and Orlando Mondragon, El Paso, Texas, Attorneys for Defendant Christopher Chavez.

Nathan D. Chambers, Nathan D. Chambers, LLC, Denver, Colorado and Noel Orquiz, Deming, New Mexico, Attorneys for Defendant Javier Alonso.

Scott Moran Davidson, Albuquerque, New Mexico and Billy R. Blackburn, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Attorneys for Defendant Arturo Arnulfo Garcia.

Stephen E. Hosford, Stephen E. Hosford, P.C., Arrey, New Mexico and Jerry Daniel Herrera, Albuquerque, New Mexico Attorneys for Defendant Benjamin Clark.

Pedro Pineda, Las Cruces, New Mexico, Attorney for Defendant Ruben Hernandez.

Gary Mitchell, Mitchell Law Office, Ruidoso, New Mexico, Attorney for Defendant Jerry Armenta.

Larry A. Hammond, Osborn Maledon, P.A., Phoenix, Arizona and Margaret Strickland, McGraw & Strickland, Las Cruces, New Mexico, Attorneys for Defendant Jerry Montoya.

Steven M. Potolsky, Jacksonville Beach, Florida and Santiago D. Hernandez, Law Office of Santiago D. Hernandez, El Paso, Texas, Attorneys for Defendant Mario Rodriguez.

Jacqueline K. Walsh, Walsh & Larranaga, Seattle, Washington and Ray Velarde, El Paso, Texas, Attorneys for Defendant Timothy Martinez.

Joe Spencer, El Paso, Texas and Mary Stillinger, El Paso, Texas, Attorneys for Defendant Mauricio Varela.

Amy E. Jacks, Law Office of Amy E. Jacks, Los Angeles, California and Richard Jewkes, El Paso, Texas, Attorneys for Defendant Daniel Sanchez.

George A. Harrison, Las Cruces, New Mexico, Attorney for Defendant Gerald Archuleta.

B.J. Crow, Crow Law Firm, Roswell, New Mexico, Attorney for Defendant Conrad Villegas.

Theresa M. Duncan, Duncan, Earnest, LLC, Albuquerque, New Mexico and Marc M. Lowry, Rothstein Donatelli, LLP, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Attorneys for Defendant Anthony Ray Baca.

Charles J. McElhinney, McElhinney Law Firm, LLC, Las Cruces, New Mexico, Attorney for Defendant Robert Martinez.

Marcia J. Milner, Las Cruces, New Mexico, Attorney for Defendant Roy Paul Martinez.

Christopher W. Adams, Charleston, South Carolina and Amy Sirignano, Law Office of Amy Sirignano, P.C., Albuquerque, New Mexico, Attorneys for Defendant Christopher Garcia.

William R. Maynard, El Paso, Texas and Carey Corlew Bhalla, Law Office of Carey C. Bhalla, LLC, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Attorneys for Defendant Carlos Herrera.

Justine Fox–Young, Albuquerque, New Mexico and Ryan J. Villa, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Attorneys for Defendant Rudy Perez.

Lisa Torraco, Lisa Torraco Law Firm, Albuquerque, New Mexico and Donavon A. Roberts, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Attorneys for Defendant Andrew Gallegos.

Erlinda O. Johnson, Law Office of Erlinda Ocampo Johnson, LLC, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Attorneys for Defendant Santos Gonzalez.

Angela Arellanes, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Attorneys for Defendant Shauna Gutierrez.

Jerry A. Walz, Walz and Associates, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Attorneys for Defendant Brandy Rodriguez.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

JAMES O. BROWNING, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant Anthony Ray Baca's oral motion for a judgment of acquittal, under rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, as to Count 8, which charges Baca with conspiracy to commit assault resulting in serious bodily injury against Julian Romero. Baca made that oral motion on Friday February 23, 2018—at the close of Plaintiff United States of America's case in chief—and he argued that the uncontroverted evidence indicates that Romero did not actually suffer a serious bodily injury. See Draft Trial Transcript (held February 23, 2018) at 327:24–329:16 (Lowry)("Tr.").1 See also Tr. at 328:13–15 (Lowry)(commenting that "we just heard Agent Acee testify that not even the prosecution could find a doctor or doctors that would agree that there was series bodily harm inflicted"). The United States orally replied that the Romero conspirators intended to inflict serious bodily injury to Romero—or perhaps to kill him. See Tr. at 329:17–330:15 (Castellano). See also Tr. at 330:10–12 (Castellano)(commenting that "it's clear that the conspiracy was there and we don't need to prove the underlying injuries or the resultant injuries").

One week later, the United States filed a written response to Baca's rule 29 motion. See United States' Response to Defendant Baca's Rule 29 Motion Regarding Count 8 at 1, filed March 2, 2018 (Doc. 1848)("Response"). In the Response, the United States argues that the Court should not grant Baca's rule 29 motion, because "[t]he evidence at trial established that Defendant Baca conspired to murder J.R.," so "the intended harm would create a high probability of death or result in serious disfigurement," such that a reasonable jury could infer that Baca "conspired to commit the crime charged in Count 8." Response at 4. Notably absent from that Response is any argument that the trial evidence indicates that Romero suffered a serious bodily injury. See Response at 4. Indeed, Agent Bryan Acee testified that the medical professionals who treated Romero did not believe that he sustained a serious bodily injury. See 298:23–25 (Acee). See also Tr. at 299:2–4 (Acee)("And I needed a medical professional to testify to that. And they did not consider it serious bodily injury.").

Baca subsequently filed a written reply. See Defendant Anthony Ray Baca's Reply in Support of His Rule 29 Motion to Dismiss Count 8 at 1, filed March 2, 2018 (Doc. 1852)("Reply"). In the Reply, Baca argues that "any purported conspiracy to assault Julian Romero did not result in serious bodily injury to him, and the United States does not make any claim that it did." Reply at 3. Baca also argues that "it was [Lupe] Urquizo that wanted to kill Julian Romero, not Defendant Baca." Reply at 3.

Committing and conspiring to commit assault with intent to inflict serious bodily injury do not violate 18 U.S.C. § 1959 ("VICAR"). VICAR proscribes, instead, racketeering-motivated "assault[s] resulting in serious bodily injury" that also violate state or federal law. 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a) (emphasis added). In Count 8, the United States charges Baca with "unlawfully, knowingly, and intentionally conspir[ing] to commit assault resulting in serious bodily injury to J.R., in violation of NMSA 1978, Sections 30–3–5 and 30–28–2." Second Superseding Indictment at 14, filed March 9, 2017 (Doc. 947)("Indictment"). N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30–28–2 defines New Mexico's conspiracy offense. See N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30–28–2. N.M. Stat Ann. § 30–3–5 defines aggravated battery as "the unlawful touching or application of force to the person of another with intent to injure that person or another," N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30–3–5(A), and it distinguishes between misdemeanor aggravated battery, which is "commit[ing] aggravated battery [and] inflicting an injury to the person which is not likely to cause death or great bodily harm, but does cause painful temporary disfigurement or temporary loss or impairment of the functions of any member or organ of the body," N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30–3–5(B), from felony aggravated battery, i.e., "commit[ing] aggravated battery [and] inflicting great bodily harm or do[ing] so with a deadly weapon or does so in any manner whereby great bodily harm or death can be inflicted," N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30–3–5(C). One can thus commit felony aggravated battery, under N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30–3–5, by unlawfully touching or applying force, with intent to injure, in a manner whereby great bodily harm can be inflicted even if great bodily harm does not actually result.

Even though Count 8 charges Baca with conspiring to commit assault resulting in serious bodily injury in violation of N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30–3–5, showing that Baca conspired to violate that statute does not mean that Baca violated VICAR. See Indictment at 14. Establishing that Baca violated VICAR by conspiring to commit assault resulting in serious bodily injury in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • United States v. Martinez
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico
    • January 27, 2021
    ...and conspiring to commit assault with intent to inflict serious bodily injury do not violate VICAR. See United States v. DeLeon, 318 F. Supp. 3d 1272, 1275 (D.N.M. 2018) (Browning, J.)(citing 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a) ). The underlying state law offense becomes a federal VICAR violation only when......
  • United States v. Baca
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico
    • March 20, 2020
    ...and conspiring to commit assault with intent to inflict serious bodily injury do not violate VICAR. See United States v. DeLeon, 318 F. Supp. 3d 1272, 1275 (D.N.M. 2018) (Browning, J.)(citing 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a) ). The underlying state law offense becomes a federal VICAR violation only when......
  • United States v. Baca, CR 16-1613 JB
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico
    • April 26, 2019
    ...and conspiring to commit assault with intent to inflict serious bodily injury do notviolate VICAR. See United States v. DeLeon, 318 F. Supp. 3d 1272, 1275 (D.N.M. 2018)(Browning, J.)(citing 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)). The underlying state law offense becomes a federal VICAR violation only when it......
  • United States v. Baca
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico
    • June 27, 2019
    ...and conspiring to commit assault with intent to inflict serious bodily injury do not violate VICAR. See United States v. DeLeon, 318 F. Supp. 3d 1272, 1275 (D.N.M. 2018) (Browning, J.)(citing 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a) ). The underlying state law offense becomes a federal VICAR violation only when......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT