Opinion ID: 792181
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: District Court Sentencing

Text: 11 On June 4, 2003 the parties appeared at a sentencing conference before Judge Duffy, where Valdez's counsel reiterated the above arguments. Judge Duffy stated that while defendant might not have understood the consequences of his wrongful actions, he knew that his actions were wrong. Valdez's counsel clarified that Valdez only argued that his sense of wrong was limited, not that it was wholly absent. The district court judge interjected that if Valdez did not wholly understand wrongfulness, then Valdez would . . . have an entirely different basis, apparently referring to an insanity defense that Valdez could have raised in such case. The district judge repeated his previous comment that Valdez knew what he was doing was wrong. 12 The district court disputed defendant's characterization of the facts, suggesting defendant initiated the illegal activity on his own after learning it from Guillermo. In October 2003 defense counsel submitted a second letter to the district court asserting that Guillermo's role was active, regular, and sustained. Valdez stated he paid Guillermo $50 per week for Guillermo's help in reading names to defendant from the phone book, and that defendant was easily manipulated by Guillermo because of his low IQ. The government responded by pointing to Dr. Berrill's report that stated Valdez refused to pay Guillermo. 13 On April 20, 2004 another sentencing conference was held. Valdez presented a new tentative diagnosis of bipolar disorder. On June 24, 2004 Dr. Berrill testified that Valdez suffered from clear cognitive defects, could barely read or write, and had an anxiety disorder. Dr. Berrill further testified that Valdez was extremely dependent on others and that, because of these problems, Valdez could not have thought of the scheme himself, nor did he have the capacity to engage in the conduct without reenforcement. Defendant's counsel asked Dr. Berrill whether Valdez knew right from wrong, to which Dr. Berrill responded: Well, on some levels he does. . . . I think the real issue is the nuance, the subtlety of the issue of wrong. The doctor further elaborated that although Valdez might be able to tell right from wrong he did not understand the degree of wrong or the full implications of his actions. On cross-examination, Dr. Berrill testified that Valdez told him he had been caught scheming the telephone company and that he knew what he was doing was wrong. Dr. Berrill also acknowledged Valdez could have written down the hundreds of names and numbers himself. 14 At the end of Dr. Berrill's testimony, the district court sentenced defendant. The court concluded that a report by Valdez's treating physician did not indicate defendant could not differentiate between right or wrong. Defense counsel then contended that whether Valdez knew right from wrong was not the proper legal standard to apply in this case. The district court further found that the evidence did not support the proposition that Valdez had a severely diminished capacity, bipolar disorder, or severe anxiety. The court denied defendant's other requested bases for a downward departure and sentenced Valdez to 18 months imprisonment, the minimum sentence under the applicable Sentencing Guidelines.