Court Opinion

ID: 9352771
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-09 19:02:32.879508+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:59:49.091803
License: Public Domain

Case: 20-50497         Document: 00516602578            Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/09/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                                        United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit

                                                                                       FILED
                                                                                 January 9, 2023
                                        No. 20-50497
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                       Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Christopher Ernest Martinez,

                                                                 Defendant—Appellant.

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                               USDC No. 7:19-CR-219-2

   Before King, Stewart, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Christopher Ernest Martinez pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting the
   production of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251(a) and 2.
   On appeal, he asks the court to reverse his conviction, contending that the
   factual basis supporting his plea was insufficient. For the following reasons,
   we AFFIRM.

          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 20-50497       Document: 00516602578             Page: 2      Date Filed: 01/09/2023

                                        No. 20-50497

                                             I.
          In September 2019, Martinez’s wife—Kelsey Hubbard—sold her
   computer to a pawn shop. A pawn shop employee called the police after he
   discovered child pornography on Hubbard’s computer. Officers arrested
   Hubbard and subsequently searched her phone.
          In their search, officers discovered that Hubbard had taken explicit
   photos of her 16-month-old daughter on two relevant dates: June 5 and
   September 13. They also discovered a string of incriminating text messages
   between Hubbard and Martinez. For instance, on September 18, Martinez
   texted Hubbard three images of child pornography. Eight days later, on
   September 26, Martinez texted Hubbard asking her to please send him the
   pornographic images of her daughter “again.” He then asked her to call him
   because he needed “those pics.” Hubbard obliged, sending Martinez four
   explicit photos and a video of her daughter. 1 The images were the same ones
   that the officers had discovered in Hubbard’s camera roll.
          Upon her arrest, Hubbard admitted to the officers that Martinez had
   asked for the photos of her daughter so that he could use them sexually.
   Armed with the images, text messages, and Hubbard’s admission, the
   officers arrested Martinez. Martinez confessed that he had instructed
   Hubbard to send the pictures and that he had sent additional images back to
   Hubbard. He also confessed that he had other images of child pornography
   on his phone. He was ultimately indicted on six counts. 2

          1
            The parties don’t dispute the contents of the photos, which showed the child’s
   exposed private regions.
          2
             The six counts were aiding and abetting the production of child pornography on
   June 5, 2019, and September 13, 2019 (counts 1 and 2); distributing child pornography on
   September 18, 2019 (counts 5, 6, and 7); and receiving child pornography on September
   26, 2019 (count 8).

                                              2
Case: 20-50497      Document: 00516602578           Page: 3     Date Filed: 01/09/2023

                                     No. 20-50497

          After negotiations with the Government, Martinez pleaded guilty to
   two counts of aiding and abetting the production of child pornography and
   one distribution count. The district court conducted a hearing, at which
   Martinez confirmed that he wanted to plead guilty, testified that he
   understood the charges, and agreed that the written factual basis for his plea
   was true and correct. The court reviewed the charges, read the indictment,
   determined that there was a factual basis to support those charges, and
   subsequently accepted Martinez’s guilty plea. After sentencing, Martinez
   timely appealed.
                                         II.
          Martinez raises a sole issue on appeal—that the district court erred in
   accepting his guilty plea as to the aiding and abetting counts because the
   underlying factual basis was inadequate. Because Martinez did not challenge
   the factual basis before the district court, we review only for plain error.
   United States v. Avalos-Sanchez, 975 F.3d 436, 439 (5th Cir. 2020). Under
   this standard, Martinez must establish “(1) there [wa]s an error, (2) that
   [wa]s clear and obvious, and (3) that affect[ed] his substantial rights.” Id.
   (quotation omitted). If Martinez satisfies those prongs, we have discretion
   to correct the error if we conclude that “the error seriously affect[ed] the
   fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. at 440
   (quotation omitted).
          Applying that standard, we must first determine whether the district
   court committed a clear or obvious error in accepting Martinez’s guilty plea.
   In that regard, Martinez focuses on an alleged violation of Federal Rule of
   Criminal Procedure 11(b)(3). Under this rule, a district court cannot accept
   a guilty plea unless the court “is satisfied that there is a factual basis for the
   plea.” United States v. Hildenbrand, 527 F.3d 466, 474 (5th Cir. 2008). An
   adequate factual basis exists when “the factual conduct admitted by the

                                           3
Case: 20-50497        Document: 00516602578             Page: 4      Date Filed: 01/09/2023

                                         No. 20-50497

   defendant is sufficient as a matter of law to establish a violation of the statute
   to which he entered his plea.” United States v. Nepal, 894 F.3d 204, 208 (5th
   Cir. 2018) (emphasis omitted) (quotation omitted).
           In evaluating compliance with Rule 11(b)(3), we compare “(1) the
   conduct to which the defendant admits with (2) the elements of the offense
   charged in the indictment or information.” United States v. Marek, 238 F.3d
   310, 315 (5th Cir. 2001) (en banc). In our review, we are not limited to the
   facts a defendant admitted during the plea colloquy; instead, we may consider
   the “entire record for facts supporting” the defendant’s confession. See
   United States v. Trejo, 610 F.3d 308, 313 (5th Cir. 2010). Furthermore, we
   may “draw any fair inferences from the evidence.”                    United States v.
   Broussard, 669 F.3d 537, 546 (5th Cir. 2012).
           Martinez challenges the sufficiency of his plea regarding the aiding
   and abetting count. 3 To establish this count, the Government was required
   to prove that Martinez associated with Hubbard’s production of child
   pornography, purposefully participated in it, and sought to make Hubbard’s
   “criminal venture” succeed. See United States v. Vaden, 912 F.2d 780, 783
   (5th Cir. 1990). An aider and abettor is liable for criminal acts that are the
   “natural or probable consequence of the crime” that he counseled,
   commanded, or otherwise encouraged. Id. “Association” in this case would
   require some evidence that Martinez shared Hubbard’s intent in producing
   child pornography. See United States v. Murray, 988 F.2d 518, 522 (5th Cir.
   1993); see also United States v. Peña, 949 F.2d 751, 755 (5th Cir. 1991) (noting
   that the “essence of” aiding and abetting is a “community of unlawful

           3
            A defendant is guilty of production of child pornography if he “employs, uses,
   persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any minor to engage in . . . any sexually explicit
   conduct for the purpose of producing any visual depiction of such conduct.” 18 U.S.C.
   § 2251(a).

                                               4
Case: 20-50497      Document: 00516602578           Page: 5    Date Filed: 01/09/2023

                                     No. 20-50497

   intent” between the aider and abettor and the principal (quotation omitted)).
   “Participation” requires proof that Martinez “engaged in some affirmative
   conduct designed to aid the venture.” United States v. Martiarena, 955 F.2d
   363, 366 (5th Cir. 1992) (quotation omitted).
          It is undisputed here that Hubbard produced child pornography.
   Martinez argues that evidence is lacking of his involvement at the time
   Hubbard produced the illicit images. Per Martinez, the record shows that
   Hubbard took the pornographic images on June 5 and September 13. But no
   facts directly confirm that Martinez was involved on those two specific dates.
   Thus, per Martinez, there’s nothing in the factual basis establishing that he
   “engaged in” conduct “aid[ing] the venture” on the dates that Hubbard
   produced the pictures, and therefore he cannot as a matter of law be guilty of
   aider-and-abettor liability. See id. (quotation omitted).
          Martinez cites nothing that supports the notion that he had to do
   something on the exact two days referenced to be an aider or abettor here.
   His argument also asks us to ignore other indicia in the record of his guilt.
   For instance, Martinez plainly admitted at the plea hearing to the correctness
   of the indictment which described his interaction with Hubbard “on or
   about” the relevant dates in “coerc[ing] a minor to engage in sexually explicit
   conduct for the purpose of producing a visual depiction of such conduct.”
   He admitted that he was guilty of that conduct. In doing so, he also affirmed
   that the facts included in the factual basis were “accurate, true and correct.”
   These admissions support the district court’s determination of his
   participation in the production of the illicit images on June 5 and September
   13. See United States v. Cooper, 979 F.3d 1084, 1091 (5th Cir. 2020) (analyzing
   factual basis for plea when the defendant admitted that “the factual summary
   accurately state[d] what [he] did”), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 1715 (2021).

                                          5
Case: 20-50497       Document: 00516602578          Page: 6    Date Filed: 01/09/2023

                                     No. 20-50497

          In assessing a plain error challenge, we can review the full record. See
   Avalos-Sanchez, 975 F.3d at 441 (“When we examine factual-basis sufficiency
   under plain-error review, we may look beyond those facts admitted by the
   defendant during the plea colloquy and scan the entire record for facts
   supporting his conviction.” (internal citation and quotation omitted)).
   Doing so here, other circumstantial evidence lends further support from
   which the district court could conclude Martinez participated. For instance,
   Hubbard and Martinez lived together at the time of the alleged production
   and regularly sent each other images of child pornography. Additionally,
   Martinez obviously knew the photos existed—otherwise he would not have
   known to ask Hubbard for them.
          Even assuming, however, that Martinez has made a reasonable
   argument, at best for him, it is unclear under our precedents whether
   Martinez’s admission and the corroborating circumstantial evidence is
   sufficient to support an aiding and abetting of child pornography charge. We
   recognize that there is a dearth of caselaw in our court and elsewhere on the
   scope of aiding-and-abetting-liability in the child pornography context.
   Moreover, it does not appear that our court has articulated a clear standard
   for what amount of evidence of advanced conduct is necessary for aider-and-
   abettor-liability to attach.
          This lack of clarity is critical here—even if the district court erred, we
   cannot conclude that any error was plain. “An error is plain, in this context,
   if it is clear or obvious what the [G]overnment must prove to establish the
   offense, and, notwithstanding that clarity, the district court accept[ed] a
   defendant’s guilty plea without an adequate factual basis.” United States v.
   Alvarado–Casas, 715 F.3d 945, 951 (5th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks
   and citation omitted). Because it was not clear under our precedent what the
   Government was required to prove to establish the factual basis, we are left
   with one conclusion: any error by the district court was subject to reasonable

                                          6
Case: 20-50497        Document: 00516602578           Page: 7     Date Filed: 01/09/2023

                                       No. 20-50497

   dispute. See Alvarado–Casas, 715 F.3d at 952–53 (concluding the district
   court’s acceptance of the guilty plea did not constitute plain error when the
   challenge was subject to reasonable dispute). Therefore, there was no plain
   error. 4 Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009); see also United
   States v. Garcia-Gonzalez, 714 F.3d 306, 318 (5th Cir. 2013) (concluding there
   was no plain error when “[b]oth parties acknowledge[d] that there is no
   precedent in [this] circuit, or any other circuit,” answering the question at
   issue).
             Accordingly, we hold that the district court did not err in accepting
   Martinez’s plea.
             AFFIRMED.

             4
            Because we conclude there was no plain error, we do not address the remaining
   prongs of clear error review.

                                             7