Opinion ID: 3210085
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Interviews with Hernandez

Text: On November 18, 2014, four months after the burglary, a Torrington police officer interviewed Hernandez about a string of local burglaries, including the Palomo burglary. At first, Hernandez denied any involvement in the burglaries. After leaving the interview room for “a few seconds,” the Torrington police officer returned and “became more accusatory” in his questioning. R. vol. 3 at 39. Hernandez again denied any involvement in the burglaries. But during the same interview, Hernandez eventually admitted that he had burglarized the Palomo home and had stolen a shotgun during the burglary. The next day, Torrington police again interviewed Hernandez. During this second interview, Hernandez confirmed his earlier admissions. But this time Hernandez implicated Martinez in the burglary, too. Hernandez said that Martinez had stolen some tools while they were both there and that Martinez had returned to the Palomo home later in the day and had stolen additional property. Importantly, Hernandez told police that Martinez had several of 4 the firearms Hernandez had stolen. Torrington police memorialized both of the Hernandez interviews in written reports. E. Martinez’s Plea Agreement and Presentence Investigation Report Following a criminal complaint on October 8, 2014, and a preliminary hearing on October 15, 2014, a grand jury indicted Martinez on two counts: (1) felon in possession of a firearm (Count One), 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2), and (2) possession of an unregistered, short-barrel firearm (Count Two), 26 U.S.C. §§ 5841, 5845(a), (d), 5861(d), 5871. On December 17, 2014, Martinez agreed to plead guilty to Count Two, and the government agreed to dismiss Count One. Under the signed plea agreement, the parties agreed to a base offense level of 22 under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(3). The parties also agreed to the application of two separate enhancements. First, the parties agreed to recommend application of U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(4)(A), which adds two offense levels for possessing a stolen firearm. Second, the parties agreed to recommend application of U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(3)(B), which adds two offense levels for possessing a destructive device. Also under the plea agreement, the government agreed to “recommend the court grant a reduction of three offense levels reflect[ing] his acceptance of responsibility” under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. R. vol. 2 at 10. Martinez 5 reserved the right to appeal if the district court calculated his total offense level as greater than 23.2 On January 7, 2015, Torrington police informed ATF Special Agents McFarland and Wright about the Palomo burglary; that a shotgun had been stolen during that burglary; and that Hernandez had admitted to burglarizing the Palomo home with Martinez. On February 6, 2015, the probation office issued Martinez’s Presentence Investigation Report (PSR). As contemplated by the plea agreement, the PSR set Martinez’s base offense level as 22 and included the two two-level enhancements for possession of a stolen firearm and possession of a destructive device. But the PSR included an additional four-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B)— one unaddressed in the plea agreement—for Martinez’s possessing a firearm in connection with another felony, reporting that “[Martinez] and [Eduardo] Hernandez burglarized a residence on July 14, 2014, and stole the firearm during the burglary.”3 2 The plea agreement thus contemplated the district court setting a base offense level of 22, adding four levels for the agreed-upon enhancements, and subtracting three levels for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. 3 U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) provides that if the defendant used or possessed any firearm or ammunition in connection with another felony offense; or possessed or transferred any firearm or ammunition with knowledge, intent, or reason to believe that it would be used or possessed in connection with another felony offense, [the defendant’s offense level will] increase by 4 levels. Additionally, a particularly relevant application note provides that § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) applies “in a case in which a defendant who, during the course of a burglary, finds 6 R. vol. 2 at 21. After subtracting two offense levels for accepting responsibility, U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a), and one level for assisting authorities in the investigation of his own misconduct by timely notifying authorities of his intention to enter a guilty plea, id. § 3E1.1(b), the PSR calculated Martinez’s total offense level as 27. The PSR also itemized Martinez’s extensive criminal history. In addition to his other convictions, Martinez had pleaded guilty or no contest to six separate thefts between 2003 and 2011. All told, Martinez accumulated 21 criminal-history points, far more than the 13 needed for a criminal-history category of VI. The advisory Guidelines range for a total offense level of 27 and a criminal-history category of VI is 130 to 162 months’ imprisonment. But the maximum sentence for possessing an unregistered, short-barrel shotgun is ten years’ imprisonment. 26 U.S.C. § 5871. Thus, the advisory Guidelines range became 120 months’ imprisonment. U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1(a). Before the sentencing hearing, Martinez objected to the PSR’s four-level enhancement for his possessing the shotgun in connection with the Torrington burglary, arguing that his alleged participation in the burglary was “not readily provable nor supported by credible evidence.” R. vol. 2 at 39. and takes a firearm, even if the defendant did not engage in any other conduct with that firearm during the course of the burglary.” U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1, cmt. 14(B). On appeal, Martinez doesn’t address whether § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) requires that he personally have possessed the firearm during the burglary. 7 F. Sentencing Hearing On March 31, 2015, the district court held a sentencing hearing. To support the PSR’s four-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B), the government called Special Agent Wright as a witness. Agent Wright testified about ATF’s investigation. He said that, soon after obtaining the shotgun, he ran a trace on its serial number and learned that June Palomo had bought the shotgun from a Walmart in Scottsbluff, Nebraska. Agent Wright also discussed what Martinez had told him during Martinez’s interview. Finally, Agent Wright testified about portions of the Torrington police reports memorializing their interviews with Hernandez. Martinez’s attorney objected to Agent Wright’s testimony about the Torrington police reports, arguing that the “multiple hearsay is so unreliable that I object to any use of that to take this sentence from 92 months up to 120 months.”4 R. vol. 3 at 34. The district court overruled the objection.5 4 Without the four-level enhancement, Martinez would have had a total offense level of 23 and a criminal-history category of VI, yielding an advisory range of 92 to 115 months’ imprisonment. 5 Of course, a district court may consider hearsay evidence at sentencing if the evidence has sufficient indicia of reliability to support its probable accuracy. See United States v. Brewer, 983 F.2d 181, 185–86 (10th Cir. 1993) (“[I]t is wellestablished that hearsay evidence is admissible at sentencing.”); U.S.S.G. § 6A1.3(a) (“[A] court may consider relevant information without regard to its admissibility under the rules of evidence applicable at trial, provided that the information has sufficient indicia of reliability to support its probable accuracy.”). We interpret Martinez’s objection at sentencing to mean that because of the multi-layered hearsay here, the evidence was so unreliable that it shouldn’t have been considered under U.S.S.G. § 6A1.3(a). 8 On direct examination, with the Torrington police reports in hand, Agent Wright testified that Hernandez had admitted that he and Martinez together burglarized the Palomo home. On cross-examination, Agent Wright acknowledged that Hernandez initially denied any involvement in the burglary, that Hernandez later claimed that Martinez had “muscled” the shotgun from him sometime after the day of the burglary, and that Agent Wright had never spoken with Hernandez and wasn’t present at Hernandez’s interviews with the Torrington police. Id. at 38–40. Despite having the Torrington police reports in front of him during his testimony at the sentencing hearing, the sentencing-hearing transcript reveals that Agent Wright wasn’t fully versed in the reports’ contents. At one point during his testimony, Agent Wright was asked whether Hernandez had admitted to taking the shotgun from the home. He responded, “If it’s in the report, then yes.” Id. at 41. In response to another question asking whether Hernandez had initially said that he hadn’t committed the burglary, Agent Wright responded, “That’s what is in the report as my understanding, yes, sir.” Id. at 39. The government didn’t introduce the Torrington police reports into evidence, and the reports aren’t in the appellate record. After Agent Wright testified, the government told the district court that it didn’t “have other evidence in support of this offense characteristic.” Id. at 46. After hearing argument on the applicability of the four-level enhancement, the district court found that Martinez had participated in the Torrington burglary, so it applied the enhancement. The district court explained its finding as follows: 9 The things I usually look for in . . . weighing statements such as the statement made by Mr. Hernandez would be what did he get out of it, was there some sort of promise of special treatment, the question not asked or evidence that wasn’t developed here. Clearly, Mr. Hernandez went [into] the interrogation intending to see how far he could push it by way of denial, and when that did not seem to be working, especially given the fact that his fingerprint was discovered within the premises, he eventually came clean and made admissions that not only implicated him but implicated his coactor, the defendant in this matter . . . . Mr. Martinez made the poor choice not only to commit the burglary but to do it with Mr. Hernandez, who made admissions against his interest and, frankly, against his associate, backed up by the fact that Mr. Martinez was found in possession of the firearm not so—at a later period, and there was a statement that it was muscled by this defendant, Mr. Martinez, and chosen by him for the, for the taking. Id. at 48–49. After applying the enhancement, the district court sentenced Martinez to the statutory maximum of ten years’ imprisonment, which also was a withinGuidelines sentence under U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1(a). Martinez timely appealed.