Date: 01-16-2022

Case Style:

United States of America v. Antonio De La Cruz-Garcia

Child Sexual Predator

Case Number: 08-2298

Judge: Carlos F. Lucero

Court:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT
On appeal from The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico - Las Cruces

Plaintiff's Attorney: United States Attorney’s Office

Defendant's Attorney:

Denver, CO - Best Disability Discrimination Lawyer Directory

Tell MoreLaw About Your Litigation Successes and MoreLaw Will Tell the World.

Re: MoreLaw National Jury Verdict and Settlement

Counselor:

MoreLaw collects and publishes civil and criminal litigation information from the state and federal courts nationwide. Publication is free and access to the information is free to the public.

MoreLaw will publish litigation reports submitted by you free of charge

Info@MoreLaw.com - 855-853-4800

Description:

Denver, CO - Criminal defense lawyer represented defendant with an
attempted sexual assault on a child charge.

Border patrol agents stopped Antonio De La Cruz-Garcia just north of the United
States-Mexico border on December 5, 2007. He admitted that he was a citizen of Mexico
and was in the United States illegally. Immigration records showed that he had been
deported just eight days earlier, on November 27, 2007. De La Cruz-Garcia pled guilty
to illegal reentry of a removed alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2) on April
9, 2008, without a plea agreement.
Prior to sentencing, a United States Probation Officer prepared a presentence
investigation report (“PSR”) recommending a sixteen-level enhancement because, prior
to removal, De La Cruz-Garcia had been convicted of a “crime of violence” as defined by
U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) & cmt. n.1(B)(iii) (2007).1
The PSR explained that De La
Cruz-Garcia had been convicted of felony “Sexual Assault/Child – Attempted” in 2006 in
1
Unless otherwise noted, all Guidelines citations refer to the 2007 version of the
Guidelines, which were in effect when De La Cruz-Garcia committed the offense of
conviction.
Appellate Case: 08-2298 Document: 01018341926 Date Filed: 01/05/2010 Page: 2
-3-
Colorado state court. According to the PSR, De La Cruz-Garcia had been staying with a
Colorado family because he was homeless. One member of the family, an eight-year-old
girl, awoke to De La Cruz-Garcia touching her vagina and buttocks over her clothes. She
told him to stop, but he did not. The victim left the room and later told her sister, who
reported the incident to her parents.
De La Cruz-Garcia objected to the enhancement arguing that the Colorado statute
under which he was convicted, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-3-405(1), criminalizes conduct that
is not necessarily a “crime of violence.” The district court disagreed, concluding that a
sixteen-level increase was warranted. De La Cruz-Garcia’s advisory Guidelines range
was thus fifty-seven to seventy-one months. However, the district court granted De La
Cruz-Garcia a downward departure because “the sexual abuse of a minor was not of the
most serious type.” It imposed a sentence of forty-eight months’ imprisonment. De La
Cruz-Garcia timely appealed his sentence.
II
A
In reviewing a district court’s application of the Guidelines, we review its legal
conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error. United States v. Wolfe, 435
F.3d 1289, 1295 (10th Cir. 2006). De La Cruz-Garcia claims the district court committed
three errors: (1) it considered the individual facts of his state-court conviction rather than
applying the “categorical approach” mandated by Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575,
600-02 (1990); (2) it fashioned his sentence based on the 2008 version of the Guidelines
Appellate Case: 08-2298 Document: 01018341926 Date Filed: 01/05/2010 Page: 3
-4-
instead of the version in effect when the offense of conviction was committed in violation
of United States v. Foote, 413 F.3d 1240, 1249 (10th Cir. 2005); and (3) it erroneously
concluded that Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-3-405(1) is a “crime of violence” under U.S.S.G.
§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii).
De La Cruz-Garcia’s first two arguments relate to the manner in which the district
court determined that the Colorado statute criminalizes a “crime of violence.” However,
if the district court’s ultimate conclusion that De La Cruz-Garcia was subject to a sixteenlevel enhancement was correct, any asserted procedural errors in reaching that conclusion
would be harmless. We will not reverse a harmless error.2
See United States v.
Kaufman, 546 F.3d 1242, 1270 (10th Cir. 2008). Because De La Cruz-Garcia’s two
procedural claims must fail if his substantive claim fails—and, as discussed infra, we
conclude that it does—we will assume for purposes of this appeal that the district court
relied on the specific facts of De La Cruz-Garcia’s conviction and that the court used the
2008 version of the Guidelines, despite our doubts that either assumption is accurate.
2 De La Cruz-Garcia did not advance his second argument—alleged use of the
2008 Guidelines—before the district court. Accordingly, we review that claim only for
plain error. United States v. Massey, 48 F.3d 1560, 1568 (10th Cir. 1995). Plain error is:
“(1) error, (2) that is plain, which (3) affects substantial rights, and which (4) seriously
affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States
v. Alapizco-Valenzuela, 546 F.3d 1208, 1222 (10th Cir. 2008). To satisfy the third prong
of this test, De La Cruz-Garcia must show that “the error affected the outcome of the
district court proceedings.” United States v. Portillo-Vega, 478 F.3d 1194, 1202 (10th
Cir. 2007) (quotation omitted). Thus, a harmless error cannot be plain error.
Appellate Case: 08-2298 Document: 01018341926 Date Filed: 01/05/2010 Page: 4
-5-
B
U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1) imposes a sixteen-level enhancement “[i]f the defendant
previously was deported . . . after . . . a conviction for a felony that is . . . a crime of
violence.” The phrase “crime of violence” is defined as:
murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, aggravated assault, forcible sex
offenses, statutory rape, sexual abuse of a minor, robbery, arson, extortion,
extortionate extension of credit, burglary of a dwelling, or any offense
under federal, state, or local law that has as an element the use, attempted
use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another.
U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 cmt. n.1(B)(iii).3

In determining whether a prior conviction constitutes a “crime of violence,” courts
must follow the “categorical approach.” Taylor, 495 U.S. at 602. To do so, courts look
to the statute of conviction rather than examining the particular facts of the defendant’s
crime. United States v. Romero-Hernandez, 505 F.3d 1082, 1085 (10th Cir. 2007).
The Colorado statute under which De La Cruz-Garcia was convicted states: “Any
actor who knowingly subjects another not his or her spouse to any sexual contact
commits sexual assault on a child if the victim is less than fifteen years of age and the
3
Effective November 1, 2008, this provision was amended to note that “forcible
sex offenses” include those “where consent to the conduct is not given or is not legally
valid, such as where consent to the conduct is involuntary, incompetent, or coerced.”
U.S.S.G. Manual supp. to app. C, amend. 722, at 302-03 (November 1, 2009).
Appellate Case: 08-2298 Document: 01018341926 Date Filed: 01/05/2010 Page: 5
-6-
actor is at least four years older than the victim.” Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-3-405(1).4
The
phrase “sexual contact” is defined as:
the knowing touching of the victim’s intimate parts by the actor, or of the
actor’s intimate parts by the victim, or the knowing touching of the clothing
covering the immediate area of the victim’s or actor’s intimate parts if that
sexual contact is for the purposes of sexual arousal, gratification, or abuse.
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-3-401(4).
We hold that the Colorado statute criminalizes only activity that qualifies as
“sexual abuse of a minor,” and thus meets the definition of “crime of violence.” U.S.S.G.
§ 2L1.2 cmt. n.1(B)(iii). Because the Guidelines do not define the phrase “sexual abuse
of a minor,” “we look to the ‘ordinary, contemporary, and common’ meanings of the
words used.” Romero-Hernandez, 505 F.3d at 1087 (quoting Perrin v. United States, 444
U.S. 37, 42 (1979)).5
A “minor” is a “person who is under the age of legal competence. . . . In most
states, a person is no longer a minor after reaching the age of 18.” Black’s Law
Dictionary at 997 (6th ed. 1991); see also Webster’s 3d Int’l Dictionary Unabridged at
1439 (1993) (defining “minor” as “a person of either sex under full age of majority . . .
4
The Guidelines do not distinguish between an attempt and a successful
commission for purposes of determining whether a crime is a “crime of violence.” See
U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 cmt. n.5.
5
De La Cruz-Garcia argues that the Colorado statute is broader than the federal
crime denominated “sexual abuse of a minor,” 18 U.S.C. § 2243(a). This contention
misses the mark. We do not look to the definition of a federal crime to determine
whether a state statute is a crime of violence; we look to the ordinary meaning of the
words used in the Guidelines. Romero-Hernandez, 50 F.3d at 1087.
Appellate Case: 08-2298 Document: 01018341926 Date Filed: 01/05/2010 Page: 6
-7-
one who in England and generally in the U.S. is under 21 years of age”). Although there
may be some ambiguity as to precisely when an individual ceases being a minor, the term
certainly applies to a person fourteen years of age, the maximum age of a victim under
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-3-405(1).
“Sexual” means “of or relating to the sphere of behavior associated with libidinal
gratification.” Webster’s 3d Int’l Dictionary Unabridged at 2082. Because the Colorado
statute requires as an element the touching of the victim or the perpetrator’s “intimate
parts . . . for the purpose of sexual arousal, gratification, or abuse,” Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-
3-401(4), it is limited to “sexual” acts.
Lastly, “abuse” is defined as to “take unfair or undue advantage of” and “to use or
treat so as to injure, hurt, or damage.” Webster’s 3d Int’l Dictionary Unabridged at 8; see
also Black’s Law Dictionary at 10 (defining “abuse” as “[p]hysical or mental
maltreatment”). The Colorado statute is limited to abusive conduct; it requires:
the knowing touching of the victim’s intimate parts by the actor, or of the
actor’s intimate parts by the victim, or the knowing touching of the clothing
covering the immediate area of the victim’s or actor’s intimate parts if that
sexual contact is for the purposes of sexual arousal, gratification, or abuse.
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-3-401(4). Because the “victim” must be a minor, the abovedescribed contact is necessarily abusive. When an older person subjects a minor to such
contact, the minor is legally incapable of granting consent, see Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-3-
405(1); engaging in nonconsensual sexual activity with a victim inherently involves
taking unfair or undue advantage of the victim. Further, such contact is almost certain to
Appellate Case: 08-2298 Document: 01018341926 Date Filed: 01/05/2010 Page: 7
-8-
injure, hurt, or damage the minor psychologically, if not physically.
De La Cruz-Garcia argues that the Colorado statute would apply to a person
touching his own intimate parts or the clothing covering those parts in the presence of a
minor, and that such conduct would not constitute a crime of violence. De La CruzGarcia’s construction is strained. By expressly referring to “touching of the victim’s
intimate parts by the actor, or of the actor’s intimate parts by the victim,” the statute
seemingly requires some contact between the victim and perpetrator. Colo. Rev. Stat. §
18-3-401(4) (emphases added). The final portion of the sentence, “or the knowing
touching of the clothing covering the immediate area of the victim’s or actor’s intimate
parts,” id., appears merely to clarify that “sexual contact” may occur through clothing.
In any event, adopting De La Cruz-Garcia’s interpretation of the statute would not
aid him. We agree with our sibling circuit that exposing a minor to a lascivious display
also qualifies as “sexual abuse” because it “requires exposure with knowledge of the
child’s presence, thereby wrongly and improperly using the minor and thereby harming
the minor.” United States v. Zavala-Sustaita, 214 F.3d 601, 604 (5th Cir. 2000). As the
Fifth Circuit further noted,
[a] distinction that treats a stranger’s brief groping of a child in a public
shower as qualitatively more serious than the conduct of an adult who
verbally forces a child to watch him repeatedly engage in sex acts is
unjustifiable. Both acts are clearly forms of “sexual abuse” as that phrase is
commonly understood. . . .
. . . Since psychological harm can occur without physical contact, a
distinction based only on physical contact would miss the essential nature
of “sexual abuse.”
Appellate Case: 08-2298 Document: 01018341926 Date Filed: 01/05/2010 Page: 8
-9-
Id. at 605.
Accordingly, we hold that even under the broadest interpretation of Colo. Rev.
Stat. § 18-3-405(1), the statute criminalizes only acts that constitute “sexual abuse of a
minor” and thus “crime[s] of violence” for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). In
so holding, we join several circuits that have construed similar statutes as crimes of
violence. See United States v. Garcia-Juarez, 421 F.3d 655, 656, 659 (8th Cir. 2005)
(Iowa Code § 709.8, “Lascivious Acts with a Child,” criminalizes sexual abuse of a
minor); United States v. Orduno-Mireles, 405 F.3d 960, 961 (11th Cir. 2005)
(“[U]nlawful sexual activity with certain minors qualifies as a crime of violence within
the Guidelines definition, either as sexual abuse of a minor or statutory rape.”); ZavalaSustaita, 214 F.3d at 602, 607 (Tex. Penal Code § 21.11(a)(2), “sexual indecency with a
child by exposure,” is sexual abuse of a minor); United States v. Baron-Medina, 187 F.3d
1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[C]onviction under California Penal Code Section 288(a)
[for committing a lewd or lascivious act with a minor] qualified as a conviction for
‘sexual abuse of a minor’ . . . .”).

Outcome: Because the district court properly imposed a sixteen-level enhancement under
U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii), De La Cruz-Garcia’s sentence is AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: