## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Ju n e6,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. N o. 05- 2157 J OR GE HE RN ANDE Z - CA S T I L L O,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. AP P EA L F ROM THE UNI TE D S TA TE S DI S TR I CT COURT

F OR THE DI S TR I CT OF NE W M EX I CO

( D . C . N O . 04- C R - 02210) Ja m e s P . B a iam o n te, A lb u q u e rq u e , N e w M e x ico fo r D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N or m an C ai r ns , A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t or ney , ( D avi d C . I gl es i as , U ni t ed St at es A t t orney , w i th hi m on the br i ef) , A l buquer que, N ew M exi co forPl ai nt i ffA ppel l ee. B efo re O’ BRI EN , Mc WI L L I A MS , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es. M c CO NNELL , C i r cui tJ udge. J or ge H ernandez - C as t i l l o pl eade d gui l tyt o i l l egal l yr eent er i ng the U ni t ed St at es i n vi ol at i on of 8 U . S. C . §§ 1326( a) ( 1) , ( a) ( 2) , and ( b) ( 2) . A ts ent enci ng, the di s tr i ctcourtenhanc ed M r . H ernandez - C as t i l l o’ s bas e offens e l evel by16-2-

poi nt s , fi ndi ng thata pr i orC al i forni a convi ct i on forengagi ng i n s exual interco u rse w ith a m ino r w as a fe lon yan d a c ri m e o f v iolen ce . O n ap p ea l, M r. H ernandez - C as t i l l o chal l enges onl ythe di s tr i ctcourt ’ s appl i cat i on of an e n h a n c e m e n t fo r a c rim e o f v io len c e . B e c a u se w e fin d th a t th e p rio r C a lifo rn ia convi ct i on w as a fe l onyand a c r i m e of vi ol ence , w e AF F I RM the d istri ct co u rt ’s deci s i on. I . Backg r ound M r . H ernandez - C as t i l l o i s a M exi can na t i onal w ho l i ved i n the U ni t ed S tate s a s a tee n a g e r. W h e n h e w a s e ig h tee n y e a rs o ld , M r. H e rn a n d e z -C a stillo w as i nvol ved i n a cons ens ual s exual r el at i ons hi p w i th A na M ej i a, a fourt een- y ear o ld g ir l. T h e tw o h ad a c h il d , B ren d a, w h o w as b o rn o n Jan u ary8 , 1 9 9 8 . M r. H ernandez - C as t i l l o has r emai ned i n cont actw i th B r enda s i nce 1998 a nd cont i nues to h elp s u p p o rth er. B ec au se o f th e fo u r-y ea r ag e d iffe ren ce b etw ee n M r. H ernandez - C as t i l l o and M s . M ej i a, he w as char ged w i th s ever al vi ol at i ons of the C al i forni a P enal C od e. H e pleaded g uil tyt o h aving un l aw ful s exu al i nter cou rs e w i th a mi norm or e than thr ee y ear s y oungert han hi m s el f, i n vi ol at i on of C al i forni a Penal C ode § 261. 5( c) . T he C al i forni a courts ent ence d M r . H ernandez C a stillo to a su sp e n d e d se n ten c e o f 1 5 7 d a y s in c o u n tyjail, w h ich a m o u n ted to tim e s e rv e d , a n d p la c e d h im o n fo rm a l p ro b a tio n fo r fo u r ye a rs . O n Ju ly3 , 1 9 9 8 , af

ter h is C a lifo rn ia c o n v ictio n , M r. H e rn a n d e z -C a stillo w as deport ed fr om the U ni t ed St at es t o M exi co. O n J ul y18, 2004, he r eent er ed-3-

the U ni t ed St at es and w as appr ehende d ata bor derpatr ol chec kpoi ntnor th of Las C ru c e s, N e w M e x ico . M r. H e rn a n d e z -C a stillo a d m itt e d to b o rd e r p a tro l ag e n ts thathe w as a ci t i zen of M exi co and thathe had i l l egal l yent er ed the U ni t ed S ta te s . H e s u b s e q u e n tly p le a d e d g u ilty to ille g a l r e e n tr y . T h e P rese n tenc e R ep o rt(“P S R ”) p rov ided that M r. H ern an d ez -C asti ll o ’s bas e offens e l evel w as 8, pur s uantt o § 2L 1. 2( a) of the U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G uidel i nes. T he P S R recom m end ed thatM r. H ernand ez-C ast i l l o’s base offen se l evel be i ncr eas ed by16 l evel s , pur s uantt o § 2L 1. 2( b) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i ) , beca us e hi s pr i or C al i forni a convi ct i on forunl aw ful s exual i nt er cour s e w i th a mi norw as a fe l ony and a c r i m e of vi ol ence . A ft era 3- l evel dow nw ar d departur e foracc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i ty , the PSR pr ovi ded foran adj us t ed offens e l evel of 21, a cr i m i nal his t orycat ego ryof IV , and a recom m end ed g uidel i nes range o f 57 t o 7 1 m on ths. A ts ent enci ng, the di s tr i ctcourtadopt ed the r ecomm endat i ons cont ai ned i n the PSR and s ent ence d M r . H ernandez - C as t i l l o t o the l ow end of the r ange, 57 m onths , concl udi ng thats uch a s ent ence w as r eas onabl e bas ed on the fa ct or s s et fo rth in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ). M r. H e rn a n d e z -C a stillo filed a tim e lya p p e a l, claim ing that the d istri ct co u rterred in ap p ly ing the s ixteen -l ev el up w ard a dju stm e n t b e c a u se h is p re v io u s C a lifo rn ia c o n v ictio n w a s a m isd e m e a n o r, n o t a fe lo n y , a n d w a s n o t a c ri m e o f v io le n c e .-4- I I . D i s cus s i on A fter Uni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) , r ender ed the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes advi s ory , di s tr i ctcourt s m us tus e a tw o- s t ep pr oces s at se n ten c in g . In S tep 1 , the d istric t co u rt m u st c o n su lt th e G u id e lin e s a n d a p p ly anyappl i cabl e upw ar d adj us t m ent s and dow nw ar d departur es . T hr ough t hat pr oces s , the di s tr i ctcourtes t abl i s hes a t ot al offe ns e l evel and corr es pondi ng se n ten c in g ra n g e u n d e r th e G u id e lin e s. In S tep 2 , the d istric t co u rt m a yu se its di s cr et i on t o i m pos e a s ent ence w i thi n the G ui del i nes r ange ort o varyei ther upw ar d ordow nw ar d fr om thatr ange. I n e v a l u a t i n g s e n t e n c e s i mp o s e d u n d e rt h e n o w- a d v i s o ryGu i d e l i n e s , we lik e w is e e m p lo ya tw o -s te p a p p ro a c h . Un itedS ta tes v . Kris tl , 437 F. 3d 1050, 1 0 5 5 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) (pe r cu ri am ). F ir st, w e c o n side r w h ethe r th e d istri ct co u rt properl yapp l i ed the G uidel i nes atS t ep 1 , revi ew i ng i t s l egal det erm i nati on s de novo a n d its fa c tu a l fin d in g s fo r c le a r e rr o r. Id. O nl yi f w e conc l ude thatt he di s tr i ctcourtcorr ect l yappl i ed the G ui del i nes ort hatanyerr or s w er e harm l es s , do w e cons i derw hetherthe ul t i m at e s ent ence i m pos ed i n St ep 2 w as r eas onabl e, appl y i ng a pr es um pt i on of r eas onabl enes s t o s ent ence s fal l i ng w i thi n the G u id e lin e s ra n g e . Id. M r . H ernandez - C as t i l l o does notchal l enge the r eas onabl enes s of the sen tenc e im p o sed b ythe d istri ct co u rt . Instea d , h e a rgu es th at th e d istri ct co u rt comm i t t ed l egal err oratSt ep 1 byappl y i ng the s i xt een- l evel upw ar d adj us t m ent-5-

based o n h i s pri or C al i forni a con vict i on becau se hi s conv i ct i on w as a m i s demeanor , nota fe l ony , and bec aus e the s exual r el at i ons hi p w as cons ens ual a n d d id n o t in v o lv e th e u s e o f fo rc e . T h e six tee n -le v e l u p w a rd a dju stm e n t fo r c rim e s o f v io len c e a p p lies to defe nd ants w ho w ere pr eviousl ydep ort ed af t er “a conv i ct i on for a fel on ythat i s .

. . (ii) a c rim e o f

v io len c e .” U .S .S .G . § 2 L 1 .2 (b )(1 )(A ). T h e se a re ter m s o f a rt; w e mustfol l ow t he def i ni t i ons s peci fi ed bythe gui del i nes and gui del i nes comm ent ary , r atherthan the or di narys ens e of the t erm s . A “fe l ony ” i s defi ned as “a n yfe d era l, stat e, or loc al offe n se p u n isha b le byim p ri so n m en t fo r a term exce edi ng one y ear . ” Id. atn. 2. T he cr i m e forw hi ch M r . H ernandez - C as t i l l o w as con vict ed, sexual i nter cou rs e w i th a m i no r, i s r eferr ed to as a “w ob bler ” beca use it i s p u n ish a b le e ith e r a s a fe lo n yo r a m isd e m e a n o r: A nyperson w ho eng ages i n an actof u nlaw ful s exu al i nter cou rs e w i th a mi norw ho i s m or e than thr ee y ear s y oungerthan the perpetr at ori s gui l tyof ei thera mi s demeanorora fe l ony , and s hal l be puni s hed byi m pr i s onm enti n a countyj ai l notexce edi ng one y ear , or byi m pr i s onm enti n the s t at e pr i s on. C al . Penal C ode §§ 261. 5( c) . U nderthe C al i forni a Penal C ode, an uns peci fi ed p ri s o n te rm in s ta te p ri s o n m a yb e fo r 1 6 m o n th s o r t w o o r t h re e y e a rs . Id. § 1 8 . A w o b b ler c h a rg e d a s a fe lo n yis tre a ted a s a fe lo n yfo r a ll p u rp o se s u n til ju d g m e n t. Uni t ed Stat es v. R obi ns on , 9 6 7 F .2 d 2 8 7 , 2 9 3 (9 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ). A w o b b ler is c o n v e rte d to a m isd e m e a n o r:-6-

( 1) A ft era j udgm enti m pos i ng a puni s hm entotherthan i m pr i s onm ent i n the s t at e pr i s on. * * * ( 3) W hen the courtgr ant s pr obat i on t o a defendantw i thout i m pos i t i on of s ent ence and atthe t i m e of gr ant i ng pr obat i on, oron ap p li ca ti o n o f th e d efen d an t or p rob ati o n o fficer the rea fter, th e c o u rt d ec lares the o ffen se to b e a m isde m ea n o r. C al . P enal C od e § 1 7(b). A l tho ug h M r. H ernand ez-C ast i l l o recei ved fou r y ears ’ pr obat i on and a s us pended s ent ence of 157 day s i n countyj ai l , hi s s i tuat i on does n o t fa ll u n d e r e ith e r o f th o s e c ir c u m s ta n c e s . M r . H ernandez - C as t i l l o’ s convi ct i on coul d have be en conve r t ed t o a m i s demeanorunder§ 17( b) ( 1) onl yi f a ju dg m e n t i m pos ed a puni s hm entother th a n im p riso n m e n t in sta te p riso n . B o th p a rties a g re e th a t M r. H e rn a n d e z -C a stillo r ece i ved a s ent ence otherthan i m pr i s onm enti n s t at e pr i s on. I ndeed, he r ece i ved p rob ati o n an d a su sp en d ed sen tenc e o f im p ri so n m en t i n co u n tyjai l. H o w ev er, nei therpr obat i on nora s us pended s ent ence i s deemed t o be a j udgm enti m pos i ng p u n is h m e n t u n d e r C a lifo rn ia la w . R obi ns on , 9 6 7 F .2 d a t 2 9 3 ; Uni t ed Stat es v. G om ez - Her nandez , 3 0 0 F . 3 d 9 7 4 , 9 7 8 (8th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ); P e op le v . Sm ith , 1 6 C a l. R p tr. 1 2 , 1 3 (C a l. C t. A p p . 1 9 6 1 ) (“ A n o rd e r g ra n tin g p ro b a tio n is n o t a ju d g m e n t.”); P e op le v . A rg u e llo , 381 P. 2d 5, 6 ( C al . 1963) ( “I n gr ant i ng pr obat i on a f ter a c o n v ictio n , the trial c o u rt m a ysu sp e n d th e im p o sitio n o f se n ten c e , in w hi ch ca s e no j udgm entof convi ct i on i s r ender ed. ”) . A ccor di ngl y , ther e w as no j udgm entconvert i ng M r . H ernandez - C as t i l l o’ s convi ct i on t o a mi s demeanorunder § 1 7 (b)(1 ).-7-

N orw as M r . H ernandez - C as t i l l o’ s convi ct i on convert ed t o a mi s demeanor under§ 17( b) ( 3) . A l though § 17( b) ( 3) appl i es t o gr ant s of pr obat i on and su sp e n d e d se n ten c e s, it o p e ra tes to c o n v e rt a w o b b ler in to a m isd e m e a n o r o n ly w hen “the courtdecl ar es the offens e t o be a mi s demeanor . ” C al . Penal C ode § 17( b) ( 3) . M r . H ernandez - C as t i l l o has pr es ent ed no evi dence thatthe s ent enci ng courtdecl ar ed hi s offe ns e t o be a mi s demeanor . I ndeed, ther e i s s om e evi dence thathi s offe ns e w as tr eat ed as a fe l ony . B eca us e hi s convi ct i on under§ 261. 5( c) w a s a fe lo n yp u n is h a b le b yu p to th re e y e a rs im p ri s o n m e n t, s e e id . § 18, the d istric t co u rt d id n o t er r in c las sif y in g M r. H e rn a n d e z -C a stillo ’s C a lifo rn ia c o n v i c t i o n a s a fe l o n y. W e nextturn t o M r . H ernandez - C as t i l l o’ s ar gum entthathi s pr i or c o n v ictio n w a s n o t a c rim e o f v io len c e b e c a u se h is re latio n sh ip w ith M s. M ejia w as cons ens ual . T he appl i cat i on not es t o § 2L 1. 2( b) ( 1) defi ne “c r i m e of viol ence” as: anyof the fol l ow i ng: m ur der , m ans l aught er , ki dnappi ng, aggr avat ed assa u lt , fo rcible se x o ffen ses, st atuto ryrap e, sex u al ab u se o f a m ino r, rob b ery , arso n , ex tort ion , ex tort ion ate e x tens ion o f c red it , b u rglary of a dw el l i ng, oranyoffe ns e underfede r al , s t at e, orl ocal l aw that has as an el ementthe us e, at t empt ed us e, orthr eat ened us e of p h y sical fo rce ag ains t th e p erso n o f a n o ther. U . S. S. G . § 2L 1. 2 n. 1( B ) ( i i i ) . T he offens es l i s t ed i n the appl i cat i on not e t o § 2L 1. 2 “ar e al w ay s cl as s i fi ed as ‘ cr i m es of vi ol ence , ’ r egar dl es s of w hetherthe pri or offen se expressl yhas as an elem ent the u se, at t em pted use, or threat ened use-8-

of phy s i cal for ce a gai ns tt he per s on of another . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Mungui aSanchez , 365 F. 3d 877, 881 ( 10th C i r . 2004) ( emphasi s and i nt ernal quot at i on m a rk s o m itte d ). S e c tio n 2 6 1 .5 is C a lifo rn ia ’s s ta tu to ry ra p e la w . S e e Mi c h a e lM. v . Sup e rio r C o u rt o

f So n o m a C o u n ty , 4 5 0 U .S . 4 6 4 , 4 6 6 (1 9 8 1 ); P eopl e v. O s band , 9 1 9 P .2 d 6 4 0 , 7 3 4 (C a l. 19 9 6 ) (“ ‘S tatu to ryra p e ’ is c o m m o n ly u n d erstoo d to b e the o ffen se o f u n law fu l sex u al i n terco u rse w ith a m ino r (§ 261. 5) . ”) . B eca us e § 261. 5 i s a s t atut or yr ape s t atut e and s t atut oryr ape i s l i s t ed i n the appl i cat i on not e, M r . H ernandez - C as t i l l o’ s convi ct i on w as fora cr i m e of v io len c e irre sp e c tiv e o f w h e th e r h is re latio n sh ip w ith M s. M ejia w a s c o n se n su a l.

I I I . C oncl usi on A cc o rdin g ly , the d istri ct co u rtd id n o t err i n S tep 1 b yclassify ing M r. H ernandez - C as t i l l o’ s pr i orC al i forni a convi ct i on as both a fe l onyand cr i m e of vi ol ence . A ts ent enci ng, M r . H ernandez - C as t i l l o’ s couns el di d notchal l enge the r e a s o n a b l e n e s s o f

th e r e s u l t i n g s e n t e n c e , a n d h e d o e s n o td o s o h e r e . We th e re fo re a ffirm th e se n ten c e im p o se d b yth e d istric t co u rt. W e fe el compel l ed t o comm ent , how ever , t hatw e have gr ave mi s gi vi ngs re g a rd in g th e a p p ro p ria ten e ss o f th is 5 7 -m o n th se n ten c e . T h e se n ten c e re su lts f ro m a six tee n -le v e l en h a n c e m e n t o n a c c o u n t o f a c o n se n su a l se x u a l re latio n sh ip M r . H ernandez - C as t i l l o had w i th a y oungergi r l m anyy ear s ago, w i th par ent al co n sen t, w h en b o th w ere teen ag ers. M r. H ern an d ez -C asti ll o co n ti n u es to su p p o rt and m ai ntai n co ntactw i th the chi l d, w ho i s now si x y ears old, and al so-9-

(apparent l y ) m ai ntai ns con t actw i th the m other . U nd er the S entenci ng G uidel i nes, thi s pr i oract , a s t atut oryr ape, i s cl as s i fi ed as a vi ol entfel ony , l eadi ng t o a 16- poi ntenhanc ement , w hi ch tr ans l at es i nt o aboutfouraddi t i onal y ear s i n fede r al pr i s on. I n r eal i tyM r . H ernandez - C as t i l l o comm i t t ed no vi ol ence and he w as p u n is h e d a t th e le v e l o f a m is d e m e a n o r. T h e S e n ten c in g G u id e lin e s p ro d u c e th is re su lt b ylo o k in g to p o ss ib le puni s hm entr atherthan ac tual puni s hm entand bydefi ni ng al l s t atut oryr ape a s vi ol entr egar dl es s of the ci r cumst ance s . T hen ther e i s the adde d compl i cat i on of d e te rm in in g w h e th e r a C a lifo rn ia “ w o b b le r” is a fe lo n yo r a m is d e m e a n o r. A

“ w o b b ler ” is a n o ffe n se th a t m a yb e e ith e r a fe lo n yo r a m isd e m e a n o r, b u t is as s um ed t o be a fel onyunl es s , among ot herthi ngs , the s t at e courti s s ues a “j udgm ent ” s ent enci ng t he defendantt o s om ethi ng l es s than a y eari n s t at e pr i s on orotherw i s e expl i ci t l ycl as s i fi es the offens e as a mi s demeanor . U nfor tunat el yfor M r . H ernandez - C as t i l l o, hi s actual s t at e courts ent ence – pr obat i on ora s us pended sent ence – i s for s om e reas on no tdeem ed a “judg m ent” und er s t at e l aw . T hu s, alth o u g h h e se rve d o n ly1 5 7 d ay s in the co u n tyjai l – a s en tenc e a p p rop ri ate fo r a m isd e m e a n o r a n d n o t fo r a fe lo n y– th is c o n v ictio n c o u n ts a s a fe lo n yu n d e r sta te l aw . I ti s har d t o s ee the l ogi c i n tr eat i ng i m pos i t i on of pr obat i on ora s us pended s ent ence as s om ethi ng ot herthan a “j udgm ent ” forpurpos es of cl as s i fy i ng the o ffe n s e a s a fe l o n yo ra m i s d e m e a n o r , b u tth a ti s w h a ts t a t e l a w d i c t a t e s . We w onderi f C al i forni a j udges ar e aw ar e of the mom ent ous cons equenc es under-10-

fede r al l aw of thei rdeci s i on w hethert o denomi nat e w obbl eroffe ns es expl i ci t l yas m isde m ea n o rs. Iron icall y , if th e state c o u rth ad b ee n m o re se v ere tow ard M r. H ernandez - C as t i l l o, byr equi r i ng hi m t o s erve a few m or e day s i n j ai l i ns t ead of al l ow i ng him t o b e rel eased i m m ediat el y , his offense w ou l d b e cl assi fi ed as a m is d e m e a n o r a n d h is g u id e lin e s ra n g e w o u ld b e 6 to 1 2 m o n th s . O ne mi ghtcons i dert hi s t he obvi ous cas e w her e an e xer ci s e of B ooker di s cr et i on coul d m i t i gat e a s ent ence thatdoes notfi tthe part i cul arfac t s of the c a s e , s ee Uni t ed Stat es v. Truj i l l o- Ter r az as , 4 0 5 F . 3 d 8 1 4 , 8 1 9 -20 (10 th C ir . 2005) , butunfor tunat el yforM r . H ernandez - C as t i l l o, hi s l aw y erhas not chal l enged the r eas onabl enes s of the s ent ence . Perhaps the Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on w i l l t ake a har d l ook atthes e gui del i ne def i ni t i ons , and es peci al l yat th e iss u e o f

C a lifo rn ia “ w o b b ler s,” to e n su re th a t se n ten c e s im p o se d u n d e r th is s ect i on ar e notgr eat erthan ca n be j us t i fi ed.