Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-02113/USCOURTS-ca10-91-02113-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

TIM 

ELOY 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

CARLOS LUCERO , ) 

) 

Petitioner-Appellant, ) 

) 

JUL 1 71992 

ROBERT L. HOEC£EE - •Cler!: 

vs. ) No. 91-2113 

) ( D. N.M. No. Cr. 88-252) 

MONDRAGON, ) 

) 

Respondent-Appellee. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

** BRORBY and EBEL, Circuit Judges, and VAN SICKLE , Senior District 

Judge 

On November 2, 1982, Melanie, a seven year old girl who was 

walking to a friend's home, was lured into his car by a man in an 

alley. He slapped her when she cried at his advances. He then 

pulled her hair, removed her panties, put his finger into her 

vagina, and left her. 

A day care center was nearby. The woman who ran it came 

outside to call her child to come in to have lunch with the day 

care children. She saw Melanie crying and came to her aid. She 

fixed the time she first saw Melanie at 11: 40 A.M. Based on 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and 

shall not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the 

case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

**Honorable Bruce M. Van Sickle, Senior United States District 

Judge for the District of North Dakota, sitting by designation. 

-1-

Appellate Case: 91-2113 Document: 010110270425 Date Filed: 07/17/1992 Page: 1
Melanie's description of her assailant and his car, police arrested 

Lucero. They found other evidence in the car. 

Lucero was indicted for first degree criminal sexual 

penetration in violation of N.M.Stat.Ann. § 30-9-ll(A) (1978), for 

kidnapping in violation of N.M.Stat.Ann. § 30-4-1 (1978), and for 

enticement of a child in violation of N .M. Stat.Ann. § 30-9-1 

(1978). Lucero was tried in state court in February of 1982, and 

this trial ended in a mistrial when the jury failed to agree. He 

was tried again in April of 1983 and was convicted on all counts. 

He was sentenced to serve 24 years of imprisonment and two years 

of supervised release. 

He appealed to the New Mexico Court of Appeals which affirmed 

the conviction. Lucero v. New Mexico, New Mexico court of Appeals, 

September 10, 1985. The New Mexico Supreme Court denied Lucero's 

petition for a writ of certiorari without comment. Lucero v. New 

Mexico, Cause No. 7871, October 17, 1985. Lucero then brought a 

petition for habeas corpus in the United States District Court for 

the District of New Mexico, which dismissed the petition. Lucero 

v. Mondragon, U.S. Dist. Ct., Dist. of New Mexico, Civ. No. 88-

0252, May 1, 1991. He now appeals that dismissal to this court. 

An attorney named Kelly first appeared for Lucero in this 

action on February 7, 1983. In accordance with New Mexico law the 

videotaped deposition of the victim was taken before the judge for 

use at trial. Kelly was present at the taping and cross examined 

the victim on behalf of Lucero. After Melanie's deposition was 

taken, Lucero recalled that he was in Kelly's office at the time 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-2113 Document: 010110270425 Date Filed: 07/17/1992 Page: 2
of the commission of the alleged crimes, conferring on a civil 

matter in which Kelly was his lawyer. 

Kelly then consulted his calendar and found that Lucero had 

had a 10:30 appointment that morning. Kelly became a witness for 

Lucero and withdrew as his counsel. Substitute counsel then moved 

the court to reopen Melanie's testimony to allow him to inquire 

more closely about the timing of the incident because timing was 

important to the alibi defense. 

At her first deposition the only question relating to time was 

an inquiry as to whether the incident happened during the day or 

night. It was Kelly's testimony that Lucero left Kelly's office 

at 11:30 or 11:40 on the morning in question. The woman who found 

Melanie after the incident was quite certain that the time she 

first saw her was 11:40. This, of course, is independent evidence 

setting the time of the crime near, but before, 11:45 A.M. 

The court denied the motion for another deposition, finding 

that to subject Melanie to further examination would likely cause 

her further mental distress and that there had been adequate crossexamination at the first deposition. The court found as a matter 

of law that: 

1. Defendant is not entitled to a further exercise 

of the right of confrontation merely predicated 

upon a change of counsel, who might desire to 

use different tactics than his predecessor. 

2. The rights of confrontation attach only to the 

Defendant, not his attorney. Once they have 

been reasonably exercised, they cannot again 

be exercised by subsequent counsel if it would 

cause undue hardship on tender-aged witnesses. 

"[T] rial judges retain wide latitude insofar as the 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-2113 Document: 010110270425 Date Filed: 07/17/1992 Page: 3
Confrontation Clause is concerned to impose reasonable limits on 

such cross-examination based on concerns about, among other things, 

harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues, the witness' safety 

" Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 679 (1986). Here 

the trial judge articulated a reasonable basis for the refusal to 

allow the second deposition. This is particularly true in light 

of the unrestricted right of cross-examination granted Lucero's 

counsel in the first deposition. 

Accordingly, the decision of the district court dismissing the 

petition is affirmed. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT: 

Bruce M. Van Sickle 

-4-

Appellate Case: 91-2113 Document: 010110270425 Date Filed: 07/17/1992 Page: 4