Opinion ID: 4543809
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Mischaracterization of the Offense Conduct

Text: Mr. Peña maintains that the district court overemphasized the seriousness of his conduct in the Lacey incident, the drive-by shooting, and the Luna incident. First, Mr. Peña contends his conduct during the Lacey incident was not as egregious as his codefendant’s conduct because Mr. Peña pointed his gun only at Mr. Lacey while his codefendant, Mr. Conde, pointed his gun at the pregnant Ms. Lacey and one of the Laceys’ children. Next, Mr. Peña asserts that the district court mischaracterized his conduct during the drive-by shooting as shooting at people, contending instead that he responded to incoming fire by shooting over the roof of the car. Mr. Peña insists he intended only to scare them, not to hurt anyone. Finally, Mr. Peña argues the public danger during the Luna vehicle theft was not extreme because he only pointed his gun at Mr. Luna in an empty church parking lot and did not actually shoot the gun. 10 While Mr. Peña may disagree with the district court as to the dangerousness of his conduct, this does not make his sentence substantively unreasonable. The district court has the role of factfinder at sentencing and “we defer to the trial court’s judgment because of its first-hand ability to view the witness or evidence and assess credibility and probative value.” Moothart v. Bell, 21 F.3d 1499, 1504 (10th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). “We will not challenge [the court’s] evaluation unless it finds no support in the record, deviates from the appropriate legal standard, or follows from a plainly implausible, irrational, or erroneous reading of the record.” Tanberg v. Sholtis, 401 F.3d 1151, 1160 (10th Cir. 2005) (citing United States v. Robinson, 39 F.3d 1115, 1116 (10th Cir. 1994)). Here, the district court carefully considered the facts surrounding Mr. Peña’s conduct. While the court found that Mr. Peña did not point his gun at Ms. Lacey or her children, Mr. Peña “initiated the entry into the home by pointing his handgun at Arthur Lacey in a threatening manner.” Peña, 2018 WL 6003538, at . The court concluded that Mr. Peña’s brandishing of firearms “in the presence of the children and the pregnant wife makes [his] conduct highly dangerous and reckless” and “implicates completely innocent victims.” Id. The court also acknowledged that during the drive-by shooting incident Mr. Conde was shot before Mr. Peña and Mr. Conde returned fire. However, the court concluded that “no one can dispute the serious and potentially dangerous threat to innocent life [posed] by Pena’s conduct of putting his arm out the window of the passenger side and shooting 11 over the roof of the vehicle.” Id. The court also determined that Mr. Peña’s conduct in the Luna incident “placed any number of innocent bystanders in danger” because churches “attract high numbers of vulnerable populations, including children, the disabled, and the elderly.” Id. Even though no churchgoers were present in the parking lot at the time, the district court still determined that there was a high “potential [for] harmful consequences.” Id. Although Mr. Peña insists that he never intended to hurt anyone and did not actually injure anyone during these offenses, these facts, even if true, do not make the sentence substantively unreasonable.