Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02145/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02145-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Jesse Zamarripa
Appellant

Document Text:

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

) 

v. ) No. 

) 

JESSE ZAMARRIPA, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellant. ) 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth ci:rr.uit 

JUN 1 1 19S0 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

89-2145 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the District of New Mexico 

(D.C. No. 89-0025 JC-01 ) 

SUBMITTED ON THE BRIEFS: 

Teresa E. Storch, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Albuquerque, 

New Mexico, for Defendant-Appellant. 

William L. Lutz, United States Attorney (Stephen R. Kotz, 

Assistant United States Attorney, with him on the briefs), 

Albuquerque, New Mexico, for Plaintiff-Appellee. 

Before SEYMOUR, BARRETT, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

SEYMOUR, Circuit Judge. 

Appellate Case: 89-2145 Document: 01019861028 Date Filed: 06/11/1990 Page: 1 
Jesse Zamarripa was charged with three counts of abusive 

sexual contact in violation of 18 u.s.c. §§ 7(3), 2244(a)(l), and 

2245(3)(1988). The three counts alleged a series of three 

offenses occurring respectively in April, May, and June, 1988, and 

involving the same victim, an eight-year old girl. Zamarripa pled 

guilty to the second count pursuant to a plea agreement under 

which the other two counts were dismissed. In sentencing 

Zamarripa, the district court departed upward from the Sentencing 

Guidelines. Zamarripa challenges this departure on appeal. We 

vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing. 

I • 

The stipulated facts in this case reveal that Zamarripa was a 

personal friend of the victim's family and was the victim's 

babysitter at the time of the occurrences. As a result of 

Zamarripa's conduct, the child's ability to trust adults and 

authority figures was seriously undermined. The child's therapist 

recorrunended counseling for more than a year, and stated that it is 

not uncorrunon for victims of this type of assault to experience 

difficulty when they reach the age for dating and sexual activity. 

However, the parties also stipulated that: 

"The therapist is unable to give an opinion on 

whether the child's behavior/psychological condition is 

within the range of 'normal' for someone who has 

experienced an assault such as hers. At most, the 

therapist would state that every case is different, and 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-2145 Document: 01019861028 Date Filed: 06/11/1990 Page: 2 
the therapist is unwilling to state that a certain 

person's reaction is normal or abnormal." 

Rec., vol. I, doc. 14 at 1. 

Under the Sentencing Guidelines in effect at the time the 

offense was committed, the base offense level for abusive sexual 

contact was six. See United States Sentencing Comm., Guidelines 

Manual§ 2A3.4 (hereinafter Guidelines). 1 The parties stipulated 

to a four-level increase under section 2A3.4(b)(2), 2 and a 

two-level decrease for acceptance of responsibility, resulting in 

an offense level of eight. The plea agreement recognized that 

these stipulations were not binding on the court. Under the 

Guidelines, an offense level of eight and Zamarripa's criminal 

history level of I require a sentence of two to eight months. 

Prior to sentencing, Zamarripa filed a sentencing memorandum 

in which he challenged indications in the presentence report that 

an upward departure from the Guidelines was warranted. The report 

suggested an upward departure might be appropriate because the 

Guidelines failed to consider adequately the increased 

1 This Guideline was amended effective November 1, 1989. See 

Guidelines, App. C, amend. 95. Because the offense of conviction 

occurred before that date, the earlier version was applied here. 

2 Section 2A3.4(b)(2) provided for a four level increase if the 

abusive sexual contact was accomplished as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 

2242 (1988). Section 2242 prohibits engaging in a sexual act with 

a person who is "(A) incapable of appraising the nature of the 

conduct; or (B) physically incapable of declining participation 

in, or communicating unwillingness to engage in, that sexual act." 

Id. § 2242(2). 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-2145 Document: 01019861028 Date Filed: 06/11/1990 Page: 3 
psychological damage to the victim resulting from Zamarripa's 

abuse of his position as the victim's caretaker, and because the 

offense occurred on three separate occasions. At the sentencing 

hearing, the district court did not specify what Zamarripa's 

sentence would be under the Guidelines, nor did it adopt the 

presentence report. Instead, it announced its intention to depart 

from the Guidelines and stated: 

"The Court finds for an upward departure pursuant 

to Section 5K2.0 for the following reasons: one, the 

defendant's relationship to the victim at the time of 

the instant offense was that of caretaker. He was 

entrusted with her well-being and this contributed to 

the ongoing nature of the crime and, in addition, had 

greater psychological impact on the victim demonstrating 

a greater harm, which are factors not considered by the 

Sentencing Commission in formulating guidelines in the 

instant case. 

Two, pursuant to 18 United States Code Section 3661 

and guideline lBl.4, the Court finds that there are 

aggravating factors in that the defendant engaged for a 

period of time in behavior similar to the instant 

offense with the same victim." 

Rec., vol. III, at 8. The court sentenced Zamarripa to fifteen 

months in prison and a three-year period of supervised release, 

and ordered restitution in the amount of $1376. 

II. 

Our review of a district court's decision to depart from the 

Guidelines requires a three-step analysis. See United States v. 

White, 893 F.2d 276 (10th Cir. 1990). First, we must determine 

whether the circumstances cited by the district court justify 

-4-

Appellate Case: 89-2145 Document: 01019861028 Date Filed: 06/11/1990 Page: 4 
departure. Id. at 277. Second, we must ascertain whether the 

.record contains a factual basis to support the circumstances upon 

which the district court relied. Id. at 278. Finally, we must 

determine whether the degree of departure is reasonable. Id. 

A. 

As its first ground for departure, the district court relied 

on Zamarripa's abuse of his caretaker relationship with the victim 

and the resulting "greater psychological impact on the victim 

demonstrating a greater harm." Rec., vol. III, at 8. This 

circumstance will justify a departure under the first step of our 

analysis only if it is a "circumstance of a kind, or to a degree, 

not adequately taken into consideration by the Sentencing 

Commission in formulating the guidelines that should result in a 

sentence different from that described." 18 U.S.C. § 3553(b) 

(1988). Accordingly, our initial inquiry is whether the 

Guidelines contain provisions under which the cited circumstance, 

sexually abusive contact by one in a caretaker role, is given 

weight in the offense calculation. 

Under Guidelines§ 3B1.3, the base offense level is increased 

by two levels "[i]f the defendant abused a position of . 

private trust ... in a manner that significantly facilitated the 

commission .•. of the offense." The Application Note to this 

provision states that "[t]he position of trust must have 

-5-

Appellate Case: 89-2145 Document: 01019861028 Date Filed: 06/11/1990 Page: 5 
contributed in some substantial way to facilitating the crime and 

not merely have provided an opportunity that could as easily have 

been afforded to other persons." Although neither the district 

court nor the Government relied on section 3Bl.3, neither has 

explained why this section is not applicable to the undisputed 

facts here. A babysitter is in a position of trust, and this 

position certainly enables him to commit a sexual crime more 

easily than a man on the street. It appears to us that the 

instant circumstances plainly fall within the ambit of section 

3Bl.3 and its Application Note. We likewise discern no rationale 

for concluding that this Guideline does not adequately cover the 

situation of abusive sexual contact achieved through abuse of a 

position of trust. Accordingly, we conclude that this 

circumstance alone does not justify an upward departure from the 

Guidelines, although the district court could have used it to 

increase the base offense level. 

B. 

The district judge also relied on his finding that the abuse 

of trust resulted in "greater psychological impact on the victim 

demonstrating a greater harm." Rec., vol. III, at 8. The 

Guidelines specifically acknowledge that a departure can be based 

on extreme psychological injury. 

"If a victim or victims suffered psychological 

injury much more serious than that normally resulting 

from commission of the offense, the court may increase 

-6-

Appellate Case: 89-2145 Document: 01019861028 Date Filed: 06/11/1990 Page: 6 
the sentence above the authorized guideline range. The 

extent of the increase ordinarily should depend on the 

severity of the psychological injury and the extent to 

which the injury was intended or knowingly risked. 

"Normally, psychological injury would be 

sufficiently severe to warrant application of this 

adjustment only when there is a substantial impairment 

of the intellectual, psychological, emotional, or 

behavioral functioning of a victim, when the impairment 

is likely to be of an extended or continuous duration, 

and when the impairment manifests itself by physical or 

psychological symptoms or by changes in behavior 

patterns. The court should consider the extent to which 

such harm was likely, given the nature of the 

defendant's conduct." 

Guidelines§ 5K2.3 (emphasis added). 

Under step one of our analysis, if the victim suffered more 

serious psychological injury than normal, then an upward departure 

may be justified. We must therefore proceed to step two and 

determine whether, under the clearly erroneous rule, the court's 

finding of greater than normal psychological harm is supported by 

the record. We conclude that it is not. Departure is only 

allowed if the harm is "much more serious" than that normally 

resulting from the offense, and likely to be of extended or 

continuous duration. The government bears the burden of proof on 

this factor because it increases the sentence. See United States 

v. Kirk, 894 F.2d 1162, 1164 (10th Cir. 1990). In this case, the 

parties stipulated the therapist was unable to state that the harm 

to the victim was greater than normal. We have carefully reviewed 

the presentence report and it adds nothing to support a finding of 

unusual psychological injury necessary to support a departure. 

-7-

Appellate Case: 89-2145 Document: 01019861028 Date Filed: 06/11/1990 Page: 7 
The district court therefore erred in departing from the 

Guidelines on the basis that the crime resulted in greater than 

normal psychological harm. 

c. 

The district court's final reason for departing upward was 

that Zamarripa "engaged for a period of time in behavior similar 

to the instant offense with the same victim." Rec., vol. III, at 

8. The court obviously was referring to the first and third 

counts, which were dismissed as part of the plea bargain. Because 

an upward departure may be supportable on the basis of Zarnarripa's 

multiple sexual contacts with the same victim, we consider the 

circumstances in which such a departure is appropriate. 

The propriety of a departure based on misconduct not 

resulting in conviction was comprehensively addressed in United 

States v. Kirn, 896 F.2d 678 (2d Cir. 1990). The court there 

pointed out that the Sentencing Commission "treated misconduct not 

resulting in conviction in four ways, each of which is instructive 

as to the issues on this appeal." Id. at 682. Because the 

analysis in Kirn informs the issue before us, we summarize it here. 

First, Kirn observed that the Commission labeled as "specific 

offense characteristics" types of misconduct that "typically occur 

in the course of the offense for which the defendant was convicted 

and that aggravate the offense, for example, display of a weapon, 

-8-

Appellate Case: 89-2145 Document: 01019861028 Date Filed: 06/11/1990 Page: 8 
infliction of injury, and taking large sums of money in connection 

with the offense of robbery." Id. TheCommission assigned 

various increments to the base offense level to add punishment for 

these factors. Second, instances of misconduct to which a 

defendant stipulates when entering a plea are treated like 

convictions and .trigger application of the multiple count analysis 

set forth in sections 3D1.1-.5. See Guidelines§ 1Bl.2(c). 

Third, prior similar conduct not resulting in conviction may be 

taken into account in departing from a defendant's criminal 

history category through the operation of section 4Al.3(e), which 

allows a departure based on "prior similar adult criminal conduct 

not resulting in a criminal conviction." Fourth, some acts of 

misconduct support an upward departure under the general authority 

of section 5K2.o. 3 

3 Section 5K2.0 states: 

"Under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(b) the sentencing court may 

impose a sentence outside the range established by the 

applicable guideline, if the court finds 'that there 

exists an aggravating or mitigating circumstance of a 

kind, or to a degree not adequately taken into 

consideration by the Sentencing Commission in 

formulating the guidelines .... ' Presence of any such 

factor may warrant departure from .the guidelines, under 

some circumstances, in the discretion of the sentencing 

judge. Similarly, the court may depart from the 

guidelines, even though the reason for departure is 

listed elsewhere in the guidelines (~, as an 

adjustment or specific offense characteristic), if the 

court determines that, in light of unusual 

circumstances, the guideline level attached to that 

factor is inadequate." 

-9-

Appellate Case: 89-2145 Document: 01019861028 Date Filed: 06/11/1990 Page: 9 
In applying the above analysis, the court in Kim recognized 

that when a defendant pleads to one of a series of offenses too 

close together in time to allow the unpled offenses to be 

considered prior acts for purposes of section 4Al.3, and those 

offenses are not subject to treatment as relevant conduct for 

grouping under section 1B1.3, an upward departure under section 

5K2.0 may be appropriate. Kim, 896 F.2d at 684. Such is the case 

here. 

The court in Kim also addressed factors relevant to the 

degree of departure based on acts of misconduct not resulting in 

conviction, pointing out that "[o]nce acts of misconduct have been 

identified as warranting departure, the structure of the 

Guidelines offers some guidance as to the normal extent of the 

departure." Id. The court turned first to the multiple count 

analysis of sections 3D1.1-.5. 

"Since the Commission carefully constructed a system for 

aggregating acts of misconduct that result in conviction 

(or stipulation in connection with a plea), that system 

must initially be used by a judge contemplating enhanced 

punishment for acts of misconduct not resulting in 

conviction, where the acts of misconduct constitute 

offenses for which guidelines have been established. 

Otherwise, an act that need be proven only by a 

preponderance of evidence might result in more 

punishment than would be called for if the act had been 

proven beyond a reasonable doubt and had resulted in 

conviction. Once having applied the multi-count 

analysis to the acts of misconduct and the offense of 

conviction, however, the judge need not depart upward 

all the way to the aggregate guideline range resulting 

from that calculation .... But the fact that the 

other acts of misconduct occurred, once counted in the 

multi-count analysis, may not be relied upon as a basis 

-10-

Appellate Case: 89-2145 Document: 01019861028 Date Filed: 06/11/1990 Page: 10 
for a departure greater than that called for by the 

multi-count analysis." 

Kim, 896 F.2d at 684-85 (citation omitted)(emphasis in original); 

see also United States v. Ferra, 900 F.2d 1057, (7th Cir. 

1990)("It would throw the structure of the guidelines out of 

kelter to say that a defendant may receive more time on a 

'departure' than he could have received had he been convicted of 

the crimes leading the judge to depart."). 

We conclude that the court's discussion in Kim is an 

appropriate assessment of the means by which misconduct not 

resulting in conviction may be factored into the district court's 

sentencing decision. Because we must remand this case, see infra, 

we express no view on the appropriateness of the degree of 

departure here under these standards. 

III. 

When one of two or more stated reasons for departure is 

invalid, the case must be remanded for resentencing because the 

reviewing court cannot determine whether the same departure would 

have resulted absent the improper factor. See,~, United 

States v. Michael, 894 F.2d 1457, 1460 (5th Cir. 1990); United 

States v. Nuno-Para, 877 F.2d 1409, 1414 (9th Cir. 1989). 

Consequently, we vacate the sentence and remand. 

-11-

Appellate Case: 89-2145 Document: 01019861028 Date Filed: 06/11/1990 Page: 11 
If on resentencing the district court determines that a 

departure is warranted, it must state '"the specific reason for 

the imposition of a sentence different from that described.''' 

United States v. Smith, 888 F.2d 720, 723 (10th Cir. 1989) 

(quoting 18 u.s.c. § 3553(c)) (emphasis added), cert. denied, 110 

S. Ct. 1786 (1990). In addition, the court must "indicate whether 

it found the Sentencing Commission inadequately considered those 

factors in formulating the guidelines. Such a finding is a 

condition precedent to imposition of a sentence above the 

guideline range." Id. at 724. This court's assessment of the 

reasonableness of the degree of departure, see White, 893 F.2d at 

278-79, is rendered difficult, if not impossible, when as here the 

district court does not indicate the applicable Guidelines range 

from which it departed. Absent a point of departure, we are left 

to speculate as to the degree. In sum, to enable meaningful 

review, a district court must ascertain the sentence under the 

Guidelines, address the applicable adjustments, and then explain 

what particular circumstance is present to support a departure and 

why that circumstance has not been adequately addressed by the 

adjustments built into the Guidelines. 4 

We vacate the sentence in this case and remand for 

resentencing in light of this opinion. 

4 The district court's compliance with these 

of an upward departure is particularly critical 

case, the defendant is given a relatively short 

not released pending appeal. 

-12-

procedural aspects 

when, as in this 

sentence and is 

Appellate Case: 89-2145 Document: 01019861028 Date Filed: 06/11/1990 Page: 12