United States v. Garcia

• Decision Date: 16 November 2016
• Docket Number: No. CR 15–4275 JB,CR 15–4275 JB
• Citation: 221 F.Supp.3d 1275
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Christopher GARCIA, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico

221 F.Supp.3d 1275

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,

v.Christopher GARCIA, Defendant.

No. CR 15–4275 JB

United States District Court, D. New Mexico.

Filed November 16, 2016

Damon P. Martinez, 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

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER¹

JAMES O. BROWNING, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on (i) the Defendant's Opposed Motion to Designate the Case Complex, filed March 28, 2016 (Doc. 56)("Motion to Declare Complex"); and (ii) the Defendant's Motion to Strike Government's Response to Defendant's Opposed Motion to Declare Case Complex and in the Alternative, Reply to Government's Untimely Response, filed May 4, 2016 (Doc. 72)("Motion to Strike"). The primary issue is whether, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii), the nature of the prosecution, the number of defendants, or the existence of novel questions of fact or law, make this case so complex that it is unreasonable to expect the defendant to adequately prepare for trial within the 70–day time limit established by 18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)(1). The Court held a hearing on May 6, 2016. Because the Court concludes that the present prosecution does not warrant a complex designation at this time, the Court will (i) deny the Motion to Declare Complex, without prejudice to its renewal at a later date, and (ii) deny the Motion to Strike.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

For the purpose of its consideration of the Motion to Declare Complex, the Court pulls its recitation of the facts from the Indictment, filed December 1, 2015 (Doc. 1); the Superseding Indictment, filed March 16, 2017 (Doc. 48); the Motion to Declare Complex; and the United States' Response to Defendant's Motion to Designate Case Complex (Doc. 56), filed May 3, 2016 (Doc. 70)("United States' Response"). The Court has already, on another occasion, provided a detailed explanation of the charges and the history of the investigations giving rise to this case. See United States v. Deleon , No. CR. 15–4268 JB (D.N.M.)(Browning, J.), Sealed Memorandum Opinion and Order, filed October 11, 2016 (Doc. 728). The facts that specifically pertain to the present case are as follows.

In March, 2015, the Federal Bureau of Investigation renewed investigation of the Syndicato Nuevo Mexico ("SNM") prison gang. See United States' Response at 1. SNM's recent activities in a conspiracy to murder high-ranking New Mexico Corrections Department Officials inspired the investigation, which included both old murders and new murder conspiracies, in addition to "the racketeering activities of current gang members that were out of custody." United States' Response at 1. Accordingly, in response to the investigation, a federal grand jury indicted Defendant Christopher Garcia in three cases. In the case at hand—the drug case—the grand jury charged Garcia—and only Garcia—with four counts for charges of (i) Distribution of Heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C) ; (ii) Distribution of Cocaine Base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C) ; and (iii) Distribution of 100 Grams and More of Heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B). See Indictment at 1–2. Additionally, in a related case—United States v. Deleon —which the Honorable Ken Gonzales, District Judge for the District of New Mexico, declared complex on January 11, 2016, Garcia has been indicted and charged with Conspiracy to Commit Assault Resulting in Serious Bodily Injury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(6). See Motion to Declare Complex ¶¶ 2, 9, at 2, 3. That case names thirty Defendants, all alleged members or associates of SNM, who have allegedly engaged in Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering activity, under 18 U.S.C. § 1959 —the "VICAR" case—whereas the present case solely makes allegations related to Garcia's involvement in drug trafficking. See United States' Response at 1, 2 n.1. Some of the Defendants were death penalty eligible, and have had learned counsel appointed. See United States v. Deleon , No. CR. 15–4268 JB, The United States' Notice of Intent Not To Seek a Sentence of Death, filed June 6, 2016 (Doc. 567)(stating that it would not seek a death sentence against twenty-one death-penalty eligible Defendants).

Garcia has also been indicted in United States v. Baca , No. CR 16–1613 JB, 2016 WL 6404772 (D.N.M. Oct. 20,2016) (Browning, J.), which names twelve Defendants, all members or associates of SNM, who have allegedly engaged in a racketeering conspiracy, under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) —the "racketeering case." See United States v. Baca , No. CR 16–1613, Sealed Indictment, filed April 21, 2016 (Doc. 1). The indictment in United States v. Baca also makes allegations of Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering activity. See United States v. Baca , No. CR 16–1613, Sealed Indictment, filed April 21, 2016 (Doc. 1). Garcia, and two other Defendants, are named in United States v. Baca and were originally death penalty eligible, and for whom the Court has appointed learned counsel. SeeUnited States v. Baca , No. CR 16–1613, The United States' Notice of Intent Not To Seek a Sentence of Death, filed September 13, 2016 (Doc. 210)(stating that it would not seek a death sentence against three Defendants). The Court has declared that case complex. See United States v. Baca , No. CR 16–1613, Memorandum Opinion and Order, filed October 20, 2016 (Doc. 238).

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On March 17, 2016, a federal grand jury returned a superseding indictment in this case against Garcia alleging charges of (i) Distribution of Heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C) ; (ii) Distribution of Cocaine Base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C) ; (iii) Distribution of 100 Grams and More of Heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B) ; (iv) Possession with Intent to Distribute 100 Grams and More of Heroin, and Aiding and Abetting, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), and 18 U.S.C. § 2 ; and (v) Possession with Intent to Distribute Marijuana, and Aiding and Abetting, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(D), and 18 U.S.C. § 2. See Superseding Indictment at 1–2. According to the United States, 1,063 pages of discovery have thus far been disclosed to Garcia. See United States' Response at 2.

Garcia now moves the Court to declare the present case complex given the complicated nature of the multiple cases being brought against him. See Motion to Declare Complex at 1. The United States opposes the Motion to Declare Complex, because, while the cases involving the prosecution of multiple SNM members' involvement in racketeering activity might require a complex designation, the present case is a "stand-alone" drug offense. United States' Response at 1–3. Additionally, because the United States did not timely file its United States' Response, Garcia asks the Court to strike it from the Court's consideration—or allow Garcia to reply. The Court will deny Garcia's Motion to Declare Complex without prejudice to renew later in the case, and will further deny Garcia's Motion to Strike.

1. The Motion to Declare Complex .

Garcia's Motion to Declare Complex requests that the Court designate his case complex pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii). See Motion to Declare Complex at 1. The Motion to Declare Complex primarily relies on the Court's designation as complex of a related case, United States v. Deleon , No. CR. 15–4268 JB, where Garcia has similarly been named as a defendant. See Motion to Declare Complex ¶ 18, at 5. Garcia argues that, "[t]hus far, the discovery disclosed is identical in Mr. Garcia's cases (15–CR–4268 and 15–CR–4275)." Motion to Declare Case Complex ¶ 13, at 4. To that point, the Motion to Declare Case Complex explains that "[t]hese two cases are absolutely related ... and [this case] is an example of the enterprise conducting drug trafficking," which relates to the racketeering allegations in United States v. Deleon. The Motion to Declare Complex points to statements that the United States has made, in the context of United States v. Deleon , where the United States indicated that it would "file a motion to declare case complex" in this case, as well as in United States v. Deleon. Motion to Declare Complex ¶ 19, at 6.

Garcia explains that, in United States v. Deleon , the United States has argued that

the government received thousands of pages of discovery and is continuing to receive from the investigative agenc[ies] thousands more ... Due to the nature of the prosecution and the number of defendants, this case is so complex that it is unreasonable to expect the defendants to adequately prepare for trial within the 70–day time limit....

Motion to Declare Complex ¶ 21, at 7–8. Accordingly, the Motion to Declare Complex argues that:

The government's statements ... also ring equally true to Mr. Garcia's defense in the instant case. Given that the discovery is identical, the witnesses are identical, [and] that joint defense counsel in 15–CR–4268 are also receiving this discovery, counsel for Mr. Garcia respectfully requests additional time through a complex-case designation in this matter to work these two matters simultaneously.

Motion to Declare Case Complex ¶ 23, at 8.

2. The United States' Response .

The United States responded to the Motion to Declare Complex on May 3, 2016. See United States' Response at 1. The United States' Response provides that "this case involves undercover controlled drug purchases that were recorded and photographed. There were also search warrants that were executed on the Defendant' residence and the Defendant's stash house." United States' Response at 3. Accordingly, the United States...