Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01129/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01129-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Terry Lee Taylor
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

FILED 

Unit.eel Stat.ea Court of Appeals Tenth circuit 

JUN 1 21990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. 

No. 89-1129 

(D.C. No. 89-CR-20) 

(D. Colorado) 

TERRY LEE TAYLOR, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Submitted on the Briefs: 

Before MCKAY and MOORE, Circuit Judges, and DUMBAULD, District 

Judge.** 

' 

' 

This is an appeal of sentencing following entry of a plea of 

guilty. Finding no error, we affirm. 

Terry Lee Taylor raises two issues relating to his plea and 

subsequent sentence. First, he claims his plea should be vacated 

*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. 

**The Honorable 

District Court 

by designation. 

Edward Dumbauld, Senior Judge, United States 

fo~ the Western District of Pennsylvania, sitting 

Appellate Case: 89-1129 Document: 010110036181 Date Filed: 06/12/1990 Page: 1 
because it was accepted by the district court without a factual 

foundation.- Second, he claims the trial court erred in sentencing 

- him at the top of the guideline range because it improperly relied 

upon the hearsay statements of the victim of the offense. Neither 

of these contentions is supported by the record. 

Before sentencing, defendant's trial counsel filed an 

alternative motion for the court to either accept the parties' 

stipulation of relevant facts and sentencing factors or permit him 

to withdraw his plea. At the sentencing hearing, the court 

accepted the stipulation and asked defense counsel if the motion 

to withdraw the appeal was moot. Counsel replied, "That's 

correct." 

Appellate counsel glosses over this admission and structures 

an argument without foundation. There is simply no jurisdictional 

predicate in the record for defendant's contention that the plea 

should be vacated. Even the mooted alternative motion to vacate 

the plea was not based upon the contention raised in this appeal. 

Even though there is no pending motion to vacate the plea, we 

have examined the record and found no error in the court's 

acceptance of the plea. Contrary to the case of United States v. 

Keiswetter, 860 F.2d 992 (10th Cir. 1988), relied upon by Mr. 

Taylor, there is clear evidence of a factual basis for the plea. 

Unlike Keiswetter, there is no dispute over the existence of facts 

supporting every element of the charges contained in the 

superseding indictment . . Indeed, the trial court was painstaking 

in its effort to insure the existence as well as the defendant's 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-1129 Document: 010110036181 Date Filed: 06/12/1990 Page: 2 
,. 

admission of those facts. 1 At this late date, without having 

raised the issue in the trial court .by a motion to vacate the 

plea, defendant's argument that the trial court did not engage in 

a colloquy with him to define the word "intimidation" borders on 

the specious. 

We have a similar reaction to defendant's second argument. 

Recognizing the rule that a sentence within the guideline limits 

is reviewable only for abuse of discretion or error of 

constitutional magnitude, defendant nevertheless argues the 

sentence must be set aside because the information relied upon by 

the sentencing court was not accurate. This contention is 

grounded upon the assertion the district judge did not hold an 

1During the Rule 11 hearing the court stated: 

The elements of each of these charges are that you 

number one, knowingly used intimidation -- number one, 

knowingly; number two, attempted to use intimidation on 

another person; number three, that you do [sic] so with 

intent to cause or induce any person to withhold 

testimony from an official proceeding; or number four, 

that you with intent to hinder, delay, or prevent the --

you intentionally hender, [sic] delay, or prevent the 

communication of another person to a law enforcement 

officer of information relating to the commission or 

possible commission of a federal offense. 

THE COURT: 

DEFENDANT: 

Do you understand these elements? 

Yes. 

THE COURT: All right. And you are admitting your 

guilt as to each element? 

THE DEFENDANT: Yes. 

The court paraphrased the language of the statute which applied to 

the facts set forth in the indictment. That paraphrasing 

constituted the elements of the crimes of which defendant stood 

accused. 18 u.s.c. § 1512(b)(2) and (b)(3). 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-1129 Document: 010110036181 Date Filed: 06/12/1990 Page: 3 
evidentiary hearing to determine the facts of the offense, but 

rather relied upon - facts stated. in the presentence report. 

contention ignores the facts contained in the record. 

That 

Evidenced by two circumstances, it is patent the only facts 

relied upon by the court in fixing sentence were the facts 

stipulated to by the parties. First of all, the court determined 

the appropriate offense level on the basis of that stipulation. 

The judge stated, "Now I make these conclusions [of the 

appropriate offense level] as a reason for my accepting now the 

stipulation of fact by the government and the defense." Second, 

within the context of those facts, the only reason the trial court 

sentenced at the top of the guideline range was because the judge 

regarded the defendant's conduct harmful to the justice system. 

The court stated: 

So any time there is an interference with the 

credibility of the way the justice system works, it's 

extremely serious, and frankly in this case warrants an 

18-month sentence. 

Now I am here to speak for the justice system. I 

would like to be able to help this family out. I read 

your letters, but if I didn't impose an 18-month 

sentence in this case, then I am afraid of what's gonna 

[sic] happen to the system, and the system is here to 

protect all of us, and I can't in good conscious [sic] 

allow that to be eroded. 

Nothing stated by the court indicates the sentence was predicated 

on "hearsay evidence of statements by a woman who was known to be 

a drug addict, who had provided untruthful information about Mr. 

Taylor's criminal record in the past, who both of the parties to 

the Plea Agreement strenuously argued was unreliable" as contended 

in defendant's brief to this court. Indeed, the record so belies 

that contention to make it patently frivolous. There is not even 

-4-

Appellate Case: 89-1129 Document: 010110036181 Date Filed: 06/12/1990 Page: 4 
the remotest of possibilities that the trial judge abused his 

discretion in this matter. 

AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

-5-

Appellate Case: 89-1129 Document: 010110036181 Date Filed: 06/12/1990 Page: 5