Opinion ID: 2764567
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Mr. Menchego’s Lesser Sentence

Text: Finally, Ms. Armijo argues that the sentence was unreasonable because it was harsher than Mr. Menchego’s. The district court recognized the difference in sentences, but acted reasonably in giving Ms. Armijo 24 months. The district court justified Ms. Armijo’s greater sentence based on her greater culpability. This rationale was justifiable based on the information supplied to the court. This information included the difference in the offenses: Ms. Armijo pleaded guilty to assault resulting in serious injury, while Mr. Menchego pleaded guilty to touching the victim without consent. The government 8 explained that it had agreed to the lesser charge for Mr. Menchego because of differences in the bystanders’ accounts. These differences created proof problems in the prosecution against Mr. Menchego. These problems did not exist in the prosecution against Ms. Armijo. As her guilty plea reflects, she admitted that she had assaulted Ms. Baca, causing serious injury. This admission led the district court to observe: “[T]his case involved a situation where the defendant physically assaulted the victim, who was bitten numerous times and sustained a serious eye injury. By ‘serious,’ . . . I’m not only including the eye injury but . . . the various times the victim was bit.” Tr. at 38 (Dec. 17, 2013) (Dkt. No. 104). The district court acted within its discretion in viewing Ms. Armijo as more culpable than Mr. Menchego. Thus, the district court had the discretion to conclude that Ms. Armijo deserved a 24-month sentence even though Mr. Menchego had obtained probation.