United States v. Meza
| Decision Date | 09 November 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 10–10886.,10–10886. |
| Citation | 701 F.3d 411 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Cristobal MEZA, III, Defendant–Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
James Wesley Hendrix, Asst. U.S. Atty. (argued), Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff–Appellee.
Seth Kretzer (argued), (Court-Appointed), Law Offices of Seth Kretzer, Houston, TX, for Defendant–Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court Northern District of Texas.
Before KING and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges, and FOOTE, District Judge. *
On July 14, 2009, three shotguns and a rifle were stolen from a pawn shop in Wichita Falls, Texas. The police determined that an individual named Chris Sanchez (“Sanchez”) had committed the robbery and found one of the guns at his house. After his arrest, Sanchez told police where he had sold another of the guns, a Mossberg 12 gauge shotgun. Police searched the property of defendant-appellant Cristobal Meza, III (“Meza”), a convicted felon, and found the shotgun in a shed. They then searched Meza's house and found two boxes of ammunition (12 gauge Winchester shotgun shells). Each box could hold a maximum of fifteen shells. One box was full; the other had only seven shells, with eight removed and placed in the shotgun. Meza was arrested a few blocks away from the residence.
On August 18, 2009, Meza was charged in a two-count indictment. Count 1 charged Meza with being a felon in possession of a firearm and Count 2 charged Meza with being a felon in possession of ammunition, both in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). Meza reached a plea agreement with the government, whereby he agreed to plead guilty to Count 1 in exchange for dismissal of Count 2, thereby capping his maximum sentence at 120 months. The magistrate judge recommended that the district court accept this plea agreement, and the district court initially agreed to do so. Meza's initial Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”) calculated his guideline range at 168–210 months, but because Meza used cocaine while he was released on bond, his guideline range rose to 235–293 months. Because this guideline range was more than the 120 month sentence contemplated under the plea agreement, the district court found that the agreement “undermine[d] the sentencing guidelines and statutory purposes of sentencing,” and rejected the plea agreement. The case proceeded to trial.
The district court held a one day trial on April 12, 2010. The government called five witnesses, consisting of four law enforcement officers and Sanchez. The government began by calling Detective Gerald Schulte of the Wichita Falls Police Department. Schulte testified that he investigated the pawn shop break-in, and that Sanchez's tip led the police to search Meza's house. Schulte also testified that, prior to execution of the search warrant, the police conducted surveillance of the property, and observed Meza leaving the house. Schulte testified that the shotgun was found in a shed on top of a washing machine and that ammunition was found inside the house. On cross-examination, Schulte explained that the police verified that Meza owned the property after they found his name on the property's water bills.
The government then called Sanchez to the stand. A week before trial, Sanchez had told investigating agents that he had sold one of the stolen guns to Meza. At trial, Sanchez admitted that he had stolen the guns from the pawn shop, and had hidden one of the guns at Meza's house, a so-called “trap house.” Sanchez then, however, recanted his earlier statements to investigators:
Q. So when you were arrested for the pawn shop break-in, did you talk to some police officers?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. And did you tell them what you did with the guns?
A. Yes, ma'am. I lied and said I sold them to this man [Meza].
Q. So you lied?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. And what about when you talked to Agent Benavides last week? What about that?
A. I lied again.
Q. Why did you lie?
A. Because I was scared. I already told them I sold them to this man, and I never sold them to this man. This man didn't have nothing to do with it.
Q. Why did you say you sold them to him?
A. Because I was scared. I didn't know. I didn't know what to do.
Sanchez continued:
Q. Did you know that they found one of the guns you stole in his—at his house?
A. That's the trap house. Everybody goes in there. That's where I had my guns hidden. I don't even know if they know that they were there or not. That's where everybody goes and chills.
Q. So you're saying he doesn't live there?
A. I don't—everybody lives there. If you need a place to go, that's where you go.
Q. So when you told police officers that you sold the gun to him and then did you—do you recall going in the car with the police officers and pointing out the house where Meza lived?
A. Yeah, I lied. I knew where he lived before.
Q. I'm sorry, say that again?
A. I knew where he lived. I knew where—
Q. So you're saying he does live there?
A. Where everybody goes and stays. I'm pretty sure he stayed there a couple of times, but—I don't know if he lives there, but I seen him there a lot of times, but I don't know if he lives there. I can't say if the house is under his name or not. I can't say if the house is under his name or if he resides under that residence. I ain't going to sit here and lie and say he does because I don't know.
Q. Okay. So you're saying that when you told the police officers back in July that you sold the gun to him and showed them where he lived—the gun was found there?
A. Yeah, I put it there.
Q. Oh, you put it there?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. Where did you put it in the house?
Q. In the back bedroom?
Q. Okay. And then what about when you spoke to Agent Benavides this past week and you told him that you sold the gun to him?
A. I lied. I know I made a mistake. It's just I didn't want to dig myself into a deeper hole than what I'm already in. I thought because of putting it off on somebody else, I would get away with it, but I didn't.
Q. But you didn't because you're doing time for stealing those guns?
Q. So you're saying if we found that gun in the back bedroom, you put it there?
Q. Okay.
On cross-examination, Sanchez stated that “[a] lot” of other people besides Meza had access to the house, including a man named Salvador Aleman. Sanchez also tried to explain his prior inconsistent statements, stating: On redirect examination, Sanchez said that the gun was not loaded when he put it in the bedroom. Sanchez also denied that he was lying on the stand because he had been intimidated by Meza.
After Sanchez, the government called FBI Special Agent Fernando Benavides. Benavides testified about his interviews with Sanchez. According to Benavides, Sanchez stated that he was fearful of Meza, and did not want to give his name for the police reports. The government then sought to introduce an audio recording of Benavides's interrogation of Sanchez. Meza objected on hearsay grounds, and at first suggested that it could be offered as impeachment evidence with a proper limiting instruction. The government responded as follows:
Mr. Sanchez's testimony was extremely relevant to certain elements, namely, Mr. Meza's knowing possession of the firearm, the fact that firearm was found at Fillmore street, which Sanchez knew to be Meza's residence.
After the Government called him, he has changed his story and became, essentially, a hostile witness. So we are offering it, one, to impeach Mr. Sanchez's testimony; but two, the evidence is relevant regarding the essential elements.
After further discussion with the district court, the government argued that the statement was admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 613(b) for impeachment purposes. When asked whether Rule 613(b) applied, defense counsel clarified:
[I]f [the witness] den[ies] that statement—if he denied that he had made an inconsistent statement, then I think you're able to offer extrinsic evidence to prove that he has, in the past, made a prior inconsistent statement. Here, I don't think it applies to the extent that he admitted he made a prior inconsistent statement.
The district court overruled the hearsay objection, found the tape admissible under Rule 613(b), and stated that it would give the jury a cautionary instruction. Meza then objected on Rule 403 grounds. The district court also overruled this objection.
The district court then played for the jury the audio recording of Sanchez's conversation with Benavides. When it did so, it provided a limiting instruction, informing the jury that it could not consider the recording for the truth of the matters asserted, but only to consider Sanchez's credibility. The audio recording is approximately eight minutes in duration. On the recording, Benavides asked Sanchez about his sale of the stolen firearms. Sanchez at first stated that he did not remember to whom he had sold the firearms, and asked to see his earlier statement to police. When asked a second time, Sanchez said, “I sold one [firearm] to Chris Meza.” When asked where the transaction occurred, Sanchez again said that he could not remember, but eventually stated, “I guess I went to his house,” which he identified as being on Fillmore Street (Meza's street). Sanchez further stated that he had been to that house many times, and had seen drugs there, but not firearms. Sanchez stated that Meza paid him approximately $100 cash for the shotgun. When asked whether the shotgun had any ammunition in it, or whether he sold any ammunition to Meza, Sanchez responded in the negative. Sanchez also denied ever seeing any ammunition in the house. After the recording was played, Benavides confirmed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Groffel v. Commonwealth
...ammunition" does not impose multiple punishments for simultaneous possession of a firearm and ammunition. See, e.g., United States v. Meza, 701 F.3d 411, 431 (5th Cir. 2012) ; United States v. Jones, 601 F.3d 1247, 1259 (11th Cir. 2010) ; United States v. Richardson, 439 F.3d 421, 422 (8th ......
-
United States v. Smith
...a firearm," either actually or constructively. United States v. Huntsberry , 956 F.3d 270, 279 (5th Cir. 2020) ; United States v. Meza , 701 F.3d 411, 418–19 (5th Cir. 2012). A defendant has actual possession over a firearm when he has "direct physical control"—such as when he has the firea......
-
Ricks v. United States, A-10-CA-352-LY
...(2) that he knowingly possessed a firearm; and (3) that the firearm traveled in or affected interstate commerce. United States v. Meza, 701 F.3d 411,418 (5th Cir. 2012); see also 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Ricks only contests the sufficiency of the evidence on the possession element. Specifical......
-
United States v. Bolton
...impressions." He urges de novo review. This court conducts a two-part analysis of prosecutorial misconduct. United States v. Meza , 701 F.3d 411, 429 (5th Cir. 2012). First, we consider whether the prosecutor made an improper remark and if so, we look next to see if the remark affected the ......