Opinion ID: 222147
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Second Sentencing Decision

Text: At the close of the sentencing hearing, the district court took the matter under advisement. The court subsequently issued a written decision. The first half of the decision recounts the factual and procedural background. See R. Vol. 1 at 425-435. The court noted that it was resentencing on a clean slate because there was no consensus on the Tenth Circuit panel as to the reasons for remand. Id. at 437. Agreeing with the government's request to vary upward, the court concluded that the Guidelines range of 46 to 57 months was woefully inadequate to accomplish the goals of sentencing in this case, because the Guidelines do not appropriately capture the seriousness of [Ms.] Lente's offense. Id. at 440. [6] The court stated that after carefully considering all the statutory factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), I find that a sentence of 192 months is sufficient, but not greater than necessary to accomplish the goals of sentencing. Id. The court then explained its reasoning.
First, the court found that the Guidelines did not adequately represent Ms. Lente's criminal history because she did not receive any criminal history points for her five prior tribal convictions. The court noted that four of the five convictions involved the use of alcohol and all involved violent and/or reckless behavior. It concluded that [t]hese prior convictions show a pattern of alcohol abuse and reckless behaviora pattern that led to [Ms.] Lente's decision to drink 13 to 19 beers on December 2, 2005 and drive on State Road 47. Id. at 441. Because three of the five convictions occurred when Ms. Lente was a juvenile, the court did not rely on them to enhance Ms. Lente's sentence. But the court found it entirely appropriate to enhance Lente's sentence on the basis of her two adult tribal convictionsone for assault and battery and one for disorderly conduct. Id. The court noted further that if the convictions had occurred in state or municipal court, her Guidelines range would have increased to 57 to 71 months. The court concluded it would be highly unjust for Ms. Lente to avoid[ ] the consequence[s] of these prior convictions merely because they occurred in tribal court. Id.
Second, the court found that the Guidelines did not adequately account for Ms. Lente's offense causing multiple deaths. Under the Guidelines' grouping rules, Ms. Lente was assessed four units for her four convictions (three involuntary manslaughter and one assault resulting in serious bodily injury), which resulted in a four-level increase to her Guidelines range. See U.S.S.G. § 3D1.4. The district court noted that [i]n accordance with these rules, the bottom end of Lente's sentencing range was increased by 5-6 months for each of her four victims. R. Vol. 1 at 442. The court concluded that 5 or 6 months did not adequately represent the value of each of these young lives. The court stressed it was not finding the Guidelines are categorically inadequate at accounting for the value of the victims' lives. It explained that the Guidelines may be adequate when there is one victim or when the victim or victims shared some minor culpability (e.g., the victims themselves were intoxicated or willfully rode in a car with an intoxicated driver). But here, where the victims are entirely blameless, the court concluded that the Guidelines do not sufficiently enhance a defendant's sentence for these additional victims. Id. at 443. Finally, the court noted that the government had proffered data showing the rarity of drunk driving offenses that result in three deathsin 2005, the average number of fatalities per drunk-driving related crash was 1.16. Ms. Lente killed almost three times as many people as the average and seriously injured another. The court stated that [t]hese statistics help show the tragic nature of this particular crash. . . [and] they help illustrate why the 5-6 month enhancement provided by the Guidelines for each victim insufficiently represents the unusual violence of this crime. Id.
Third, the court said there were additional factors that demonstrate Ms. Lente's extraordinary recklessness and show why this case is outside the `heartland' of cases contemplated by the Guidelines. Id. The court gave three examples: (1) Ms. Lente's excessively high BAC; (2) driving without a valid New Mexico driver's license; and (3) driving on State Road (SR) 47, a well-traveled road just outside of Albuquerque. The court first noted Ms. Lente's .21 BAC measured two hours after the crashover two-and-a-half times the New Mexico legal limit of 0.8. The court further noted that Ms. Lente's BAC was significantly over the statewide average in drunk driving cases, citing to 2005 statistics showing that .16 was the mean BAC for drunk drivers in New Mexico. Id. at 444. Second, the court observed that Ms. Lente had never held a valid New Mexico driver's license. While I acknowledge that the lack of a driver's license does not necessarily correlate with a lack of driving experience, it certainly suggests that [Ms.] Lente has never had any formal driving training. Id. The court also said that Ms. Lente's decision to drive without a valid driver's license demonstrates [her] further disregard for the law. Id. Finally, the court noted that SR 47 is well-traveled and the crash occurred in the Isleta Pueblo, just twelve miles outside of the city of Albuquerque. The court said Ms. Lente must have been aware of these road characteristics because she had lived in this area her whole life and yet still chose to drive while highly intoxicated on this well-traveled road. Id. at 445.
Finally, the court found that the Guidelines sentence of 46 to 57 months does not achieve the sentencing goals set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553 because it does not reflect the seriousness of the offense, and it would not adequately deter Ms. Lente from future criminal conduct nor protect the public from Ms. Lente. The court noted that Ms. Lente's criminal history shows a repeated willingness to drink to excess and engage in reckless behavior, often endangering the safety of others. Despite multiple terms of imprisonment by tribal authorities [7] and five separate terms of probation, [Ms.] Lente has continued to engage in such reckless behavior. Id. Accordingly, the court found that a substantial sentence is necessary to deter Lente from future offenses and to protect the public. Id. at 446.