Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-02039/USCOURTS-ca10-91-02039-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gilbert Joel Saiz
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

FILr.j D 

United States Co~ ~f A-p~ Ter,th C,-rcut • 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ll.PR 2 3 1992 

Plaintiff-Appel lee, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 91-2039 ROBERT L. HOECKEE 

Clerl: · 

vs. 

GILBERT JOEL SAIZ, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO 

(D.C. NO. CR-90-251-JP) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Submitted on the briefs:tt 

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

New Mexico, for Defendant/Appellant. 

William L. Lutz, United States Attorney, Tara c. Neda, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Albuquerque, ·New Mexico, for 

Plaintiff/Appellee. 

Before McKAY, Chief Judge, LOGAN, Circuit Judge, and SAM, District 

Judge.*** 

*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. 363. 

**The parties agreed that oral argument was unnecessary and 

that the case could be submitted on the briefs. R. App . P. 34(f); 

10th Cir. R. 34.1. 2. The case, therefore, was ordered submitted 

without oral argument. 

***The Honorable David Sam, Judge for the United States 

District court for the District of Utah, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 91-2039 Document: 010110243047 Date Filed: 04/23/1992 Page: 1
SAM, District Judge 

Defendant/ Appellant Gilbert Joel Saiz ("Defendant" ) was tried 

before a jury which returned a verdict of guilty on the charge of 

possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 

u.s.c. § 922(g) (1). Defendant filed a challenge to the application 

of the sentence enhancement provision of 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (1) 

claiming that his 1981 conviction for aggravated burglary was 

constitutionally invalid. He also argued that his 1977 conviction 

for commercial burglary should not be considered a predicate 

offense since it did not involve entry into a dwelling. After a 

sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed sentence under 18 

u.s.c . § 924(e) (1). 

Defendant raises four issues on appeal. First, defendant 

urges that the prosecutor's remarks during closing argument 

regarding a convicted criminal I s possession of a firearm was 

egregious misconduct warranting reversal of his conviction. 

Reversal is appropriate only if the argument was improper and the 

argument influenced the jury to return a verdict on grounds beyond 

the admissible evidence presented. United State v. Dickey, 736 

F.2d 571 (10th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1188 (1985). 

Without elaborating on what is sufficiently set forth in the 

record, the c ourt c on c l ude s that there was substantial evidence 

2 

Appellate Case: 91-2039 Document: 010110243047 Date Filed: 04/23/1992 Page: 2
against the defendant. The court is also of the opinion that the 

lower court insulated defendant from prejudice by sustaining 

defense counsel's objections, commenting on the impropriety of the 

relevant statements, and repeating jury instructions that 

attorney's statements are not evidence. Based on the foregoing, we 

conclude that the isolated prosecutorial comment cannot be deemed 

to have improperly influenced the jury. 

Defendant next contends that the evidence presented at trial 

was insufficient to support a verdict of guilty. In reviewing a 

claim of insufficient evidence, we "must decide whether a 

reasonable jury, viewing all evidence in the light most favorable 

to the government, could find the defendant guilty beyond a 

reasonable doubt." United States v. Cox, No. 89-1109, slip op. at 

7 (10th Cir. May 24, 1991). Given the eyewitness testimony and the 

admissions of defendant, we conclude that the evidence against 

defendant ~ould necessarily lead a reasonable jury to find guilt 

beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Defendant next argues that a predicate offense for his 

sentence enhancement under 18 u.s.c. § 924(e) was constitutionally 

infirm because he received ineffective assistance of counsel in a 

1981 conviction for aggravated burglary. We review the lower 

court's determination of effectiveness of counsel de novo. United 

States v. Pena, 920 F.2d 1509 (10th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 111 

s. ct. 2so2 ( 1991). The reviewing court "must indulge a strong 

3 

Appellate Case: 91-2039 Document: 010110243047 Date Filed: 04/23/1992 Page: 3
presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of 

reasonable professional assistance. " Strickland v. 

Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 689 (1984). The burden is upon the 

defendant to show that counsel's performance was deficient and that 

such deficiency resulted in actual prejudice. Id. at 687. After 

reviewing the record, we conclude, as did the lower court, that 

defendant has not met his burden of establishing the constitutional 

invalidity of his conviction. 

Finally, defendant asserts that his conviction for commercial 

burglary is not an appropriate predicate offense under 18 u.s.c. § 

924(e) because it did not involve entry of a dwelling. We review 

this issue de n ovo . United States v. Manes, 920 F. 2d 1525 (10th 

Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 263 (1991). We find 

defendant's argument without merit because 18 u.s.c. § 924(e) 

contemplates a generic meaning of burglary. United States v. 

Taylor, 495 U.S. 575, (1990); United States v. Silkwood. 893 F.2d 

245 (10th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 110 S. Ct. 2593 (1990). 

For the above reasons, we AFFIRM defendant's conviction. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

4 

Appellate Case: 91-2039 Document: 010110243047 Date Filed: 04/23/1992 Page: 4