Flores, Vincent, WR-83,010-01

Flores, Vincent

WR-83,010-01

| Tex. App. | Mar 16, 2015

Check Treatment

Case Information

*1 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS STATE OF.TEXAS Criminal No. 746 and 3627.06

v. This document co~tains so!l'e pa~ges that ar~ of P?or quahtv

VINCENT FLORES tRECE~VED ~~ . at the time of 1ma~mg. OOURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

§ MAR 16 §

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

NOW INTO THIS HONORABLE COURT, comes Defendant(Vincent Flores), who moves this court to order the 51st District Court of Sterling County, Texas to 1) Clarify the court's (

December 11, 2014 order denying petition for WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS; OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE 'MOTON TO WITHDRAW GUILTY PLEA or 2) issue a ruling on Defendant s WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS; OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE; MOTION TO VACATE ORDER OF DEFERRED ADJUDICATION COMMUNITY SUPERVISION(cause no. 746) and order the County Court of Steriing County, Texas to issue a ruling on Defendant's WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS; OR IN ALTERNATIVE; MOTION TO VACATE ORDER OF DEFERRED ADJUDICATION COMMUNITY SUPERVISION(cause no. 3627 .06) for the following reason to wit:

L. In July 2014 Defendant. filed a WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS; OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE MOTION TO WITHDRAW GUILTY PLEA in the 51st District Court(cause no. 746) and the County Court(sause no. 3627.06). ON August 6, 2014 the County Court denied Defendant's WRIT OF El:ZRO,R CORAM NOBIS; OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE MOTION TO WITHDRAW GUILTY PLEA(cause no.

3627.06, see attached order). In November of 2014 Defendant submitted a WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS; OR IN . THE ALTERNATIVE MOTION TO VACATE ORDER OF DEFERRED ADJUDICATION COMMUNITY SUPERVISION in the 51st District Court and County Coury of Sterling, Texas(cause· ·no .. 's 3627.06 and 746--attached herein). On December 11, 2014 the 51st District Court issued an order denying Defendant's petition for WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS; OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE MOTION TO WITHDRAW GUILTY PLEA •. One week later DHendant

,.? ..... *2 filed a motion to the 51st District Court requesting that the court clarify the order and explain if the District Court was denying Defendant ^[1] s first WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS; OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE MOTION TO WITHDRAW GUILTY PLEA, as the order indicates only or :j:f the court construed Defendant ^[1] s second WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS; OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE; MOTION TO VACATE ORDER OF DEFERRED ADJUDICATION COMMUNITY SUPERVISION :· :; ' - as supplement to the first WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS and was denying them both. Defendant also contacted the County Court requesting that the court issue a ruling on the WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS; OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE MOTION TO VACATE ORDER OF DEFERRED ADJUDICATION . COMMUNITY SUPERVISION. Defendant also explained to both courts that he had pending

litigation in federal court(Western District of Texas-Midland/Odessa Division) that is relative to the outcome of the District and Cbunty courts ruling--Defendarit was granted n a stay by the federal court for this very reason. In January 2015, the 51st District

Court again issued the exact . same order without any clarification. That sa~e month Defe.ndant s fam:i.ly . contacted the Clerk who represents both courts to insure that both courts had received the WRITS that were filed in November 2014, subsequently Defendant sent a second copy of both WRITS to the. Clerk, this time the Clerk did acknowledge receiving the · copys, however the Clerk s.tated that the copys were not signed or notarized, a?ain in February 2015, Defendant sent a third copy, which was the second sigried and notarized copy of the WRITS (cause no. 7 46 and 3627. 06--enclosed) and' which time Defendant explained that to both courts that he has pending litigation in federal court and requested the courts issue a ruling by March 5, 2015--Defendant gave notice to both courts that if no ruling was issued by March 5, 2015--Defendant would file a WRIT OF MANDAMUS with the Court of Criminal Appeals to order the District Court to 1) clarify the December. 11, 2014 order or 2) rule on the WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS; OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE MOTION TO VACATE ORDER OF DEFERRED ADJUDICATION COMMUNITY SUPERVISION(casuse no. : 746--enclosed) and order the County Court to issue a ruling on the WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS; OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE MOTION TO VACATE ORDER OF DEFERRED ADJUDICATION SUPER- VISION(cause no. 3627.06~-enclosed).

·.~·

*3 ...... ··:· II.

Based:~ on the above describeq facts, Defendant respectfully request that the Court_ of Criminal Appeals order the 51st District Court to ·1) clarify the December 11, 2014 order or 2): issue a ruling on the WRIT OF ERROR. CORAM NOBIS; OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE MOTION TO i VACATE ORDER OF DEFERRED ADJUDICATION COMMUNITY SUPERVISION(cause no. 746--enclosed)

and o.rder the County Court to issue a ruling on the WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS; OR IN THE ·ALTERNATIVE MOTION TO VACATE ORDER OF DEFERRED ADJUDICATION COMMUNITY SUPERVISION(casuse no. 3627.06--enclosed).

Conclusion Wherefore, Defendant respectfully request that the Court of Criminal Appeals GRANTS Defendant's WRIT OF MANDAMUS.

·certificate of Service

- ' I hereby certify that a copy of the said motion was sent to opposing counsels and was

mailed on March_}fl_, 2015.

F.C.I. Big Spring 1900 Simler Ave. Big Spring~ Tx. 7~720 . I *4 Cause No. 3627.06 §

STATE OF TEXAS IN THE COUNTY COURT §

vs § OF ....

§ §

VINCENT FLORES STERLING COUNTY, TEXAS ORDEH REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS On this the ,; th day ofc;~L--4-. I 201the Court having examined and considered the Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nbbis filed by Vi~cent Flores finds the pleading to be ' without merit and the relief sought is hereby denied.

,; .. ··::·

CAUSE NO. 3627,06

THE STATE OF TEXAS § IN THE COUNTY COURT §

vs. OF. §

§ VINCENT FLORES STERLING COUNTY, TEXAS §

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS; OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE;

MOTION TO VACATE ORDER OF DEFERRED ADJUDICATION COMMUNITY SUPERVISION

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

COMES NOW,· VINCENT FLORES, the Defendant/Probationer in the abov-e styled Cause (hereinafter "Flores"), and pursuant to this Court's inherent power, authority, and interest in· preventing injustice, hereby files ·this i Verified Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis; or, in the ·alternative;

Motion to Vacate Order of Deferred Adjudication Community Supervision, and in support thereof, Flores would respectfulli show the Court as follows:

I. On October 6, 2006, at approximately 7:30pm, a Sterling County Police Officer conducted a warrantless seizure and search of Flores's person, ·as well as a warrantless search of Flores's vehicle (as more fully detailed at Part VI of this motion, infra). Flores asserts that no legitimate basis . . existed which warranted the Officer's aforementioned actions (no degree· o'f·

"reasonable. suspicion" -or- "probable cause" -or- "consent" -or-:- "concern for officer safety" existed which justified the searches conducted).

II. As a result of the above referenced warrantless and unconsented search of Flores's vehicle, the searching Officer found a personal use quantity of Marijuana, and a personal use quantity of cocaine in Flores's vehicle. Upon discovery of the aforementioned Marijuana and cocaine, Flores was arrested by the searching Officer and charged as follows:

·?r·· (Page 1 of 10)

·.

(A) For the Marijuana, Flores was charged--by Information issued in The

County Court of Sterling County, Texas, CAUSE NO. 362706 (herein after "this Cause")--with a Class "B" Misdemeanor in violation of Texas Health and Safety Code §481.12l(b)(l); and,

(B) For the cocaine, Flores was ·charged~-by Indictment issued in The

District Court, 51st Judicial District of Sterling County, Texas, CAUSE NO. 746st--with a "Third Degree" Felony in violation of Texas Health and Safety Code §481.115(c)".

III. On July 25, 2007, Flores agreed to plead guii ty to the marijuana offense charged in this Cause. In exchange for that plea Flores agreed to accept the imposition of a twelve (12) month term· of Deferred Adjudication Community Supervision (hereinafter "Supervision").

IV. On January 30, 2008, this Court--upon motion by Flares--granted Flores a reduction in, and early termination from, the aforementioned twelve (12) month term of Supervision.

Flores now asserts that his guilty plea to the marijuana offense charged in this Cause was not knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily entered, and that:

(1) This Court's Order imposing the twelve (12) month term of Supervision; (2) This Court's "findings of guilt" in this Cause; and,

(3) Any and all forms Flores signed (which purported to "waive" certain

rights of Flores's);

are all constitutionally invalid because:

(A) Flores was never forewarned--either by this Court, the State

Attorney's Office, or Defense Counsel Fred Brigman (hereinafter

Brigmap")--of the completely unexpected collateral (Page 2 of 10)

consequences he would suffer in subsequent prosecutions as a result of , his guilty plea--and this Court's findings of guilt--in this Cause;

(B) Flores's reasonable understandings and reasonable expectations--

regarding the effects and consequences of hi~ aforementioned guilty plea--and/or this Court's findings of guilt--would have in subsequent criminal proceedings have been violated; and,

basis existed for Flores to move to suppress the drug evidence involved in this Cause, and that suppression of the drug evidence would lead to dismissal of the , aforementioned charges against Flores in this Cause.

VI. -'Flores asserts that because his guilty plea in this Cause (for the reasons set forth herein) was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered, then this Court's findings of guilt--along w:!-th the imposition of the aforementioned twelve (12) month term of Supervision--are constitutionally void, and the Order imposing said term of Supervision must therefore be vacated based upon the following facts, to wit:

(1) Moments prior to Flores's arrest on October 6, 2006 (at approximately

7:30pm), the arresting officer approached Flores--who was standing near the edge of a small lake located 40 yards behind the "Town and Country" convenience store in Sterling City, Texas, in an area then open to the public--and started questioning Flores about what he was doing.

(2) In response to the arresting officer's questions Flores stated he was

waiting for his Cousin who was then in the Town and Country convenience store. The arresting officer then instructed Flores to walk to the front of ·the convenience store.

•f,', (Page 3 of 10) (3) At the front of the convenience store the arresting officer asked Flores whether any of the vehicles in the stores parking lot' were his. Flores answered "yes" and then pointed out his car, a Ford Contour.

(4) The arresting officer told Flores "I'm going to put you in handcuffs

because I want to search your car." Flores asked "why" and the arresting officer responded "because we've had some complaints about "vandalism." (5) ,After pat frisking and handcuffing Flores (possibly for officer safety)

the arresting officer proceeded to search Flores's vehicle, whereafter the drugs--specifically the marijuana ~hich supports the offense charged in this Cause--was discovered, .. and resulted in Flores' arrest and subsequent prosecution in this Cause.

(6) At no time ·during the above described interactions between Flores and

the arresting officer, did Flores do anything that would have warranted the offi~er handcuffing Flores or searching Flores's car. Flores never gave the. officer consent to search his car, nor did the arresting officer--at any time--have lawful justification (meaning reasonable suspicion, probable cause, consent, concern for officer safety, etc.) to conduct a warrantless search of Flores's p~rson or of Flores's car.

(7) Had l'1r. Brigman told Flores that the arresting officer's above described

conduct justified suppression of the drug evidence ·found in Flores's car, Flores would never have agreed to plead guilty in exchange for the aforementioned twelve (12) months of Supervision, Flores would instead have insisted that:

(A) l'1r. Brigman file a motion to suppress the drug evidence--on .the

basis that the arresting officer lacked. any reasonable suspicion, probable cause, consent, or concern for officer safety--that otherwise may have justified the Officer searching Flores's person and car (all in violation of Flores's Fourth Amendment right to be free from unl~wful searches and seizures). And,

·~,- (Page of 10)

I (B) Flores would have insisted on. going to trial rather than entering

what Mr. Brigman called a "plea of convenience" in this Cause. .~ (8) In addition to the above described Fourth Amendment violations--which Mr. Brigman never informed Flores could result in suppression of the drug evidence and dismissal of the Indictment in this Cause--Mr. Brigman also misadvised Flores about the effects his guilty plea, and the effects this Court's findings of guilt, would have on Flores in future criminal proceedings.

(9) Flores asserts that Mr. Brigman's affirmative misadvise (as described

below) invalidates the knowing, intelligent, and voluntary nature of Flores's guilty plea in this Cause, as well as invalidates this Court's findings of guilt, the Order imposing the twelve (12) month term of Supervision, and all "waiver of rights" forms Flores signed in this Cause-~because Mr. Brigman expressly informed Flores that:

(A) If Flores entered a "plea of convenience" guilty plea to the drug

offense charged in this Cause (in exchange for the twelve (12) month term of Supervision); and,

(B) If Flores "stayed out of tro.uble" while on Supervision,· Mr. Brigman

assured Flores that he (Mr. Brigman) absolutely would:

(i) File for early termination of Flores's Supervision;

(ii) Ask this Court to allow Flore's to withdraw his guilty plea;

and, . (iii) If this Court granted Mr. Brigman's request that Flores be

permitted to withdraw his ·guilty plea, Flores would have no conviction in this Cause that could be used against him :i.n future criminal proceedings .

. (10) Mr. Brigman further explicitly informed Flores that i f this Court were

to grant Flores the aforementioned early termination and withdiawal of

-~·· (Page of 10) *10 .; his guilty plea, Flores's criminal record in this Cause would be "wiped clean" and Flores would suffer no collateral consequences as a result of him pleading guilty in this Cause.

VII. Flores asserts that Hr. Brigman's above described express representations, as well as·Mr. Brigman's complete failure to advise Flores regarding the existence of a viable basis to move for suppression of the drug evidence and dismissal of the charges in this Cause, are the sole reasons wqy Flores chose to plead guilty, rather .. than insisting that Nr. Brigman move to suppress the drug evidence, move to dismiss the charges, and proceed to trial· in this Cause. Flores further asserts that had Hr. Brigman not advised Flores

I that if this Court were to allow Flores to withdraw his guilty plea--thereby "wiping away" Flores,' s. criminal record in a manner that would not effect him .in future. criminal proceedings--Flares wouid not have entered a "plea of convenience" guilty plea, he instead would have insisted on going to trial on the drug offense charged in this Cause.

VIII. Flores asserts that as a result of .Hr. Brigman's above described express representations--and material omissions--Flares developed certain reasonable understandings and resonable expectations, namely:

(1) Flores reasonably understood and reasonably expected that:

(A) Mr. Brigman was at all times representing Flores to the best of his

abilities, and in Flores's best interests;

(B) Should this Court allow Flores to withdraw his guilty plea in this .

Cause, Flores's criminal record would be "wiped clean"; and; (C) If Flores's record was "wiped clean"--by withdrawal of his guilty

plea in this Cause--then he would not have any "conviction" that could be used against him in any future criminal. proceeding.

(Page 6 of 10)

*11 · .... -: IX. Flores asserts that his "reasonable understandings" and "reasonable : expectations" (as previously described) were violated when:

(1) After pleading guilty to Count One of a multi-count, multi-defendant

federal Indictment--issued in the U.S. Distr~ct Court for the Western District of Texas (Midland-Odessa Division), Criminal Case No. M0-12-CR- 00011 (hereinafter "federal case")--Flores ^[1] s guilty plea--and/or this Court ^[1] s findings of guilt--in this Cause was used to increase his Criminal History Score from "Category I'' Criminal History, up to "Category II" Criminal history. The effect of his guilty plea:--and/or this Court ^[1] s findings of guilt--in this Cause, resulted in Flores's otherwise applicable sentencing guideline range' of 168-210 months being increased to 188-235 months (a Category I Criminal History--combined.

with Flores's offense level of 35--would result in a guideline sentencing range, of .. 16_8-210 months; while a Category II Criminal History-~combined with Flores's ·offense level of 35--resulted in a guideline sentencing range of 188-235 months. Because Flores received a "low end" sentence of 188 months rather than a "low end" sentence of 168 months, Flores was prejudiced by receiving an extra 20 months as a result of his guilty plea--and/or this Court's findings of guilt in this / Cause. See attached Exhibits A and B)).

X. Flores asserts that the federal government's reliance upon his guilty plea--and/or this-Court's findings of guilt--in this Cause, as a "sentence"- for purposes of increasing his Criminal History score from Category I up to Category IT--violated Flores s above described "reasonable understandings" and "reasonable expectations" regarding the impact his . guilty plea--and/or this Court's findings of guilt--in this Cause would have in future criminal proceedings. Because Flores s rec-eived a "low end" sentence of 188 months in his federal case, rather than receiving a "low end" sentence of 168 months, Flores was prejudiced by receiving an extra 20 months as a result of his guilty plea--and/or this Court's findings of guilt--in this Cause.

XI. Flores requests that this;, Court find that his guilty plea--as well as this ,.-"·· (Page 7 of 10)

Court's findings of guilt--in this Cause was "void ab initio," due to the extent of "collatera1 consequences" which Flores was never advised--either by this Court, the State Attorney's Office, or Mr. Brigman--he would be subjected ·to in future criminal proceedings, and because of the unknowing, unintelligent, and involuntary guilty plea Flores entered in this Cause--as a result of Mr. Brigman's ineffectiveness, misadvise, and withholding of relevant information (information that wouldhave changed the outcome of this Cause, as well as changed the outcome of Flores's federal case).

LEGAL ARGUMENT

XII. The Texas courts have routinely found that when a defendant is not adequately apprised of the consequences of his guilty plea, _or that he was not fully informed (or. otherwise mislead) by defense. counsel or the Court, . the defendant ^[1] s plea _is constitutionally invalid. See Anderson v. State, 182 S.W. 3d 91LI (Tex. Grim. App. 2006). This is in keeping with the general principle that a defendant must be fully informed of the consequences attendant from his. guilty plea.

XIII. The writ ·of error coram nobis is an extraordinary remedy available tu a petitioner no longer in custody who seeks to vacate his criminal conviction on constitutional grounds. See United States v. Hatten, 167 F. 3d 884, 887 n.

6 (5th Cir 1999). Where a defendant is no longer in custody on the conviction under attack, coram nobis is the appropriate vehicle under which to challenge the validity of the conviction if the defendant s guilty plea--and/ or the Court's findings of guilt--were premised upon misinformation (or the withholding of material information), and for claims regarding ineffective assistance of counsel relati~e to the validity of the gtiilt~ plea--and/or the Court's findings of guilt. See Campos-Conrrada v. Thaler, No.· 3:12-CV-4190, U.S~ Dist. Lexis 166457 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 23, 2012).

(Page 8 .of 10) *13 WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, and in light of the foregoing facts and legal arguments, Flores prays that this Court will enter an orde.r vacating the July 25, 2007, Order which imposed Flores's twelve (12) month term of Deferred Adjudication Community Supervision, and that this Court will grant Flores any other relief to which .he is justly entitled.

Respectfully submitted, Vincent Flores

Federal Register Number 88010-280 Federal Correctional Institution 1900 Simler Avenue Big Spring, Texas 79720 VERIFICATION

STATE OF TEXAS §

§ §

COUNTY OF HOWARD ON THIS DAY personally appeared VINCENT FLORES, who, after being placed under oath, stated the following:

"My name is VINCENT FLORES, Federal Inmate Register Number 88010-280, and I am the Defendant/Probationer in this Cause . (Cause No. 746ST, in the District Court, 51st Judicial District of Sterling .County, Texas), and I have been so at all material times relevant to this proceeding."

"I have read the foiegoing "Verified Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis; or, in the Alternative; Motion to Vacate Order of Deferred Adjudication Community Supervision" and every statement, fact, and assertion contained therein is within my personal knowledge and is completely truthful and correct."

Vincent Flores

Sworn to and subscribed before me on

NOTARY PUBLIC

(Page.9of 10)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and exact copy of the above and foregoing instrument was sent via First Class Mail, postage pre-paid, this 31st day of .; October, 2014, to the County Attorney's Office at: P.O. Box 88,. Sterling

City, Texas 76951; and 609 4th Avenue, Sterling City. 76951; and all iri accordance with Texas Rules of Criminal Procedure. . .~ Vincent Flores

(Page 10 of 10)

..... .··

/ ' \ 0, \ . ~ I @ *16 •. Case 7:lL.

.. If\.1 THE Ui\IITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOH THE., WESTEH.N DISTRICT OF TEXAS • ' . ' ..,.. ! . •· MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION

') .,J ) UNITED STATES bF AMERICA ~~0-12-CI\-Ol;L 4 ) ~-' •) vs. ' ) ) - .· )

. ) . n . _BEFORE THE HOI\IORABlE · ROBE,RT JUNELl Cl UNITED STATES DISTRICT. JUDGE In Midland~ Texas 9

r:.~~;·r;-:r~~ .~:,'~~-~':~~~~;:-;;";j.:;c:~" ~~~;·:~~~i'~·~:~~;·;.t ',~.~·:y.o ··•\:·~:-; ·~\'·::'" 1';.:"•- ".~1 .•..•. J~.R·<r.~;I\USSEt:l.::;,p,.":l:!.:,~!M2:HI)fil;\1)1 ';.\ssi stant united states Attorney GOl N.W. Loop~410, ·suite~GOO. . san 1-\nl:orii o, Texas·, B216~ ·

(2JO) 3$4-7016 . • - ~ .· ' ' ' . .t - . 1SfMR'; 1 ~;rS:fiEv[\·T~f!EifsiisreRGE·R; ::;/

1!.1 · ·~-c;;;·:rfa·l~lie·)/ i-t-"t;iw'· '':---·.-·······_ ..... 600.N. Marienfeld, suite 850 Midland, Texas 79701 c 432.) 5 70-4014 • '17 I MR. TODD ANDERSON, RMR, CR~ COURT REPOH.TER ~ i united ·States court 1\eporte r ·E: . Iiiia ll , Rill.·· 116 ' , ~~i ell and,· _lcexas · 79701

(43Z) 686-0GOS r) ') The abqve-s:tfl eel and nUinberecl caus(!. w.as rel?.or·ted by L...J .. · ~ ~..· nJechani ca·l ste.n_ogl~aphy .and pr:oducml by conJPL!tel~·.

- -.

• ,It· Todd Ancle l~::::qn, 1\MR, . CRI\

1.1t'' *17 ---------------- '------------'---- ..

'1 what. IJOI~t i 011s of those w i I I be ..:cl i sff i buted ·to· thos(:"l. pe1~son~;. ~ -~- .

') ,_ Uncle1~ Ai5P li cat i Oli Note Lll.ld~l- 3WI . 1 TI-ll~ COUfU: of the Se11tenc i ng Guide I i ne_s, it p1~ov i cles, "To· quCJ I i fy~- for· ') J . ~ 4 an adj UStlllellt Lflldel~ thiS seCt i Oil, the- clefendCJilt- lllUSt have been i.~he Ol~gan i Zel~, I eCJde_l~, 11101l3gel~·, or- ~upe'n1i SOl~· C!f one 01- 5 6

7 wa1Tarited, l1ow~ve1~, in- the case of' a defendant who cJ i_ cl no:t . . , •.. ol-ge:m i ze, I eacl, _man2rge; 01- supe,~v i_·se ~nothcT p211-t i c i-p;:Jnt ~~ :. ~ 8 but who nevel:._..:the I ess exei~C i sed mmwgelll~'ITt. l~esp~ns i b i I j 1=y - g ..... ' . . . . ; .

·1·1 01~gan i zat ion." . The (;oLwt r i nels that thel--e is s T g_n i'_r-=- i can·s ev i clence

'12 --· COnta i llecl ill tiie p1:-ese11:tence xepo1:-t ·that. ·the 'Dt:"}:fenclt:lllt ~/C:lS (J '13

pe1~son. who cl i c;[C.~<en~ •• i s~ lliEHla~l~lll~nt 1~esp·or~s i. ~ i I' i _t~\ ove1: ~- _,. .•. _ .. -.~·- ..... .... .r- · .. -:-- T5 p1-ope1-ty iJ~SetS, that lJe i ll~J the. COCa i llQ tilc~t WaS C~ll·l i ng i IJtO 16 the United. Stat~es, <Jnd 6ve1Tules your- objection.

'17 _ _ ~@CI0~~~~Q;,~;~~~~9EJf&'s~~:::i~9J~~tJ2,9.~~-j:~~pSr:d.93w:i:;fi~1·;rq~i~liJ1-itr·ri~)t::-~/ _ : (~!Q ~£~~I~9)i~;~~i?;'9~~,ifi;~~~~~c{f~X.:i5,~·hE.1:~fi~~JJi;1~Wi\~~:-~;.t,~~:s::~i_\li,:~~n~1~~ g·• :;.[)jy,.::~& !f-;i,;Vi :~?~?,i.J'P'A! ·,+_· '18 --,-~•;t• .•. •. _-,•t", ·•-:.~· . . , (.·~," • ....,. •• · - - 11' _ , , •. ·- ~ • .,,.~__...-' ,.,...-._· •• ., ~:.~A,t"':~- ·'"'; .;• ~t"~;WIJat: ,,pa·I~<Jg.~;,a!Jil.M.<jsi-:;t-l.;i'a.l1·.i,:~-~Mr;~:··.·~Hep-t)lbel:::ger;;;.?y ··:: ;.r;: ;':, •'·"~ r:r/·;;, :·.'t'i .. ;~·· J.: .:: ~- · ,"r:;'~"-"':. --:/ ~£5··:".4' _, :·:':"' 1•. t ~ ... ~ ·:;::-t·;· ~ :•,•"',:f·,i·:.t' 1,::.'-f;. : .... ;\· ·--~ -·~- · •. :;.t:.~_;: ·~,.. '·-~---·-:"':'!,; -~:. ·• ':·' . . .... ~J?,J~9:~~~rifO'r\~r:o.r~&;::c~~,Br;:~~YI:4!~~.9 Jy:~·r.u;;::~y;~?. }!Y 9~_,1f_::l:i ~~~ 1 o~~ :_ .. .- : ~ .. 20 .. fi1:_t.Jr;~:;G.o:Qhi:~;:;.u~~~~~~:;,::g?I\9,9}~{ii~.~It:qQJt8.1?_~l:;:JAI:r:~·0r1tt:.·:y:i}cftl··:

2'1 . @~~-:~;~;:ti~~-JJ~~~9~~]·».:~l;(::i:i~I~';:.,:!,3F1,)::o:2.;~:q;6:~.1~(; f~~£.3~~~;·.-,i·~,~-~-~;';~;~,;'li~':i:;;:~::>2:6 8f::~T;,: ;~~: ·t - . . _ _ _ 23 ER~~~Q's~~~.-~:~;~~{.~~;:~~i~~~~:~:~~il~;~r 24 (i;OI'l-EY~<' .. .'flia.s:<:foi?:-::,Ep:O.s~:;e·s:s;i:otl::;:.o:C';J:i.1:;{,coil.tt:OT;J;ed:f;:sub.s:t'citV;e;;;_ · -~ ·::_--.--·2 ~.(:"' ,. :'-'.:.','>····" ~"'l~:::·:-·f·~.:.~.l!-:;~;;.~;.:~:;~.~~· ^[1] :;'~jt.:('ll'vrf~<?i~:,;~~ .... .. _., .:::. .. :;.;.:~/J.i" -~-..,;;~'\' :.-:·~~-·!·~:j.~;~:~~=-~-~-.~- :.:-··.i \Y~:~~~ f."!.·~;~· ~ ... :~:i·~:~--~i.:.(-~":<··:'.:.: t· ~~q;9:0~~i. 1 l\~J:~t~~nY:~:;;~':-~Ict%5~!~EJ~iJ~§g,~4;·;~~:) 1 !~f1~~D"'~{i',§·q;:~~~~::i}:;c~~~~i;:9,:J~~:;t:ffQrt!·!~1 1 ~~~ti:~{;!g:q~it_·~:

+ -

______ ____:•:...,_. ---'----,---'-~' Todd Ancler5911 ·, f\MI'\, CRR

-·- *18 --·------·-----·---- - - - ___ , ____ · - - - · - - : - - - - - - ' .- r~:9:~F~·~Ti:~!~'i~:§:.: ·Q-a\(:Wt~~i(i.lill?.'~'i,:Fz~~ §.o;r~ifP .. IJ,tl;!~tll~>·t.o LLJJJ~:)(i:~ ~,o H·~:~: ~ ~i\{$ ·,1~¢,1::: 1:: i_ llg, · :.> 6 1 ~i:~~~~i;j~::ij-l[S!)J:~p,;,l).\;,i;"{3 j3:?,~r9,\l(J2){;~~~ ~ !"'~;;!J':~~~:~,i;Y:e,'lif~''c~ :·po~i i" "':'' Ami J U1 ink· your- posi t ion · is they .shoul cl not 9 on I y ·one of then! ?houl d be counted; · is Uiat -- ·

·-1 0 -·

Ml'<.- I:IERSI-113EI-\GI::r<: . Yes. Dne ··- both ~f i I i ngs ~ COiliC' '12 out o'f the Sl:lllle stop ·in Stel-l i i1g Count:~/') · _ .. / ' ·

'13

14 n~sponse? . : .. .- 15 j . Ml\. HERSH13EI\GER: . Y.es. .111/hat- he i ~-·saying- i ~' . i~t- : '16 Is --' it Is u··e'ated ..s~pa n:rte I y: ~but. theil -~tllel-e' ~. tl1e

r; tllei·e Is the wonl II un I ess. II~· 1-\ncl if' t:lle .wor~cl. II ui1l es::~ ... · .; I ·1u Ulll ess lle is· sentenced on. d i f"fel-e.nt. clays -- . if lle Is . -

'19 sentenced on cl i ffel-errt clays, the1~ ·til at basi ca I I y cloes not

. . . . . docun1en:t, then ... that wou I cl -- t_heri it waul cl no·t count.

2 ·1 f]\l.ld 111y. Ullclel-st<:lncJ i llQ, tll~rt IJe_ w<Js aiTesu~~ <:111cJ 22 ~23. booked irrto Stel-l ilig .. Countx_ on· both cllclrges] -So tile --·-- ,

2 he I cl on out or.:- Ster I i ng County, it Is· on both J . . [. - ' . . - . .

~-----;:--------------:;.-------:-------. Todd Allele r SOil , f{W\,

.· *20 .I consp i ,-as;y befor-e the date that he pI eel ancl got ,-e.ce i V8tl - 2 If' 1·1e was i nvo I vecl in it -- and thJ·nl<... as I 3 ,-ecal I , t.he dat.es of the pl-obat·i or1 we1;.e tl1e1-e in 2007-:- . : .... So he;; pI eel' ancl he· was given 1xobot ·ion, one ce:ise Oil. .• .. . ~ .. ...; '

May 29th;. the othel-. 011~ 01i J1.1l y ·.25th. · And ~o ~rom ··th::rt. ·t i 1i1e pe1- i ocl. say: May ·zg" 2007, and you sa icl 11e was on··:.- f1~ w;Js·-

.~ .·. see whe,-e -- I ~guess the secpnd one -- Okay~ l-Ie had DOt. ·12 months cle'ferrecl pl-obat ion.- ·

- On ·the othe,- case,..J the County CoLwt ~ase, Mr. ·· cr=ouch, when cl i cJ he come · of'r=: of pl-obat ion· on til at. cas:c~?

' '- BecaLJse .it· s not .I i sted. in til .... e pr·esen.tence ,-epcwt:..

. PI~OI3AT I 01\1 OFF I CEI<: Your_: l·loncw, . he was cl i scl'lc.ll:.gc~ ...

on· the County ~case on Janua 1"y 30. 2008. -1 ~) THE COURT: Okay. So JanLial-y 30, 2008. So ~he . ~ .. . . "'" ,• ' 16 spent about six moiTths ·then ·on p1-oba·t i.OI}. · - '17 Mr-. _Leachman. other· thc:m this state~n<:::nt. ~clo ·you , ··r ..... .. . i ' ~- _,. '18 have r.:my · otlle1- ev i clence that the Defer!dan.:t was · i nvo I ved' in - .... -. . . .. -~ . · ... ·.~ . . .

'19 . ·the consp i ,-acy cluJ- i ng ·that time fn:~nie?~ ·

20 Mr~. I_EACHMAI\1 : Othe ,- than s i Ill i I a,- pass i ng ~

;z·1 statements I i l<.e that, Yow- Hono,-, no. ·- I . ... :-...~r.r~:~-~·~;-~;-y:;,\~~f.?:;~~~'i'~~:~;-~~~:<:~.:.:~:~·;:,;;7,~~~:;~;:~ ;~·-~;i.~;::~~~~Tr~;".t,.~,~~;~~~!?.:-;:~-~~~:~~~~->:~,.;;,-;' -· .. · ... ~ .. : -~ -~' z·" _t_ Gi~.I;:IJ.i~-:~;c lJI~ir,~ i"'·~;.;,::::@kay:r:').>,r,;; 119f11lli~.§ o;J ng !:'itm; g J;:ant;·.:::~!~ e.:·::? - . . . . .· . . ~ 23

iii~ii:~s::;:::t:!~!!~'t:~;~!:~:!~~:::~;:;:~!:;d~~ = 24 .. . .. ·?- • . ~ . Todd A11dersqn, ·RMR, CRR· (tl}2)' 6-86-0605 .

I , , . l J :::; < ~/;_l'i :~. -.::. (i ~- ......

~ '. . ' , -ooo:tl-H/\J !j3,:~I~.(if;~~;;:f[;i~5:?~r::i,-82:.)}/ol{Lj~;:;.[?-aq~~2.·Sr3i..::~::,.: ...

case 7:1. · rr·::··r~ .:~t;:;~~~: _~:~·->~.'.~-;-~ ~.t·,;~:.-~·;>\~::.: :~·-\-;. 'r · . .: · ·" l~;.t:.l;J ;::JrJ•.d=:o,U r.:c,;. ijJO: rJlLS.•;.:. .• · . 1 '4 ' ~- ...,._ ' • I !-.' 'isd,<t:Hat'C'woiYI'cf"'{)e-·'· :· ·-~·· 1 )ar~b·g-r"a 1 JIY 7°.,,. ~we·· 1 r ;take··· it '!

t~\: ~ ~' :- . ) ., :·.·. •,, :;.,. ~." ~ ..... ~~:~·." ·:· ~ .' .), -~.;· 1~~~::, . .-.-t ~ ~t )::-:.:.-;-;·_:_,~ -~~ .-..... ~·:.u~-~-.~ . ,.;:·~ ..... ·': ~~_:";.~-)':+~-}- /:" ::·~: .. f• _:-: ;; ;,:·<~~/{>,:,_: ~ t'.O: ( ·:. ~. '(~~-: 3 ~:~~Y.P:;::~i:?~l?;c!::r~ft~.~i5:?:~~b.e~;~$~!F~;4tJ~J:;~:~i1~9i,;{3:1;.~tiB3'b·r~·~',:)l;i:f.f9J.::::~v:J:u:;~l.;~~·r1ofN... . t::.':;~;v;:·:7':·(i:!~:~·:.:;:ii::!.;l ~.!5ha9~-t:~2 G~:l\1i'.i:n~ :i&'\lj:~f::~~t_§.f~ ::·;p~o-i~:n ~~?P.t~~::o,:twoflj·~: ;irl t ~ .:,.:h).r:- ,; 4, s ~:@f.,_~·r~~!/!':!:,t~a,;;~.:::-:J.l.F;;;tg\::y::r.iS:·?:;.S!(.~P.~r~~~:';e rr;:}:.;;s~:~~.~ (:)_r~,:: fll o)i:::).: ,/ Any other- objections?

7 ....

8 THE COURT: Okay. lioes :the Govenlm8rTt rlc1Ve: <Jrty ~- .. ..... .... -- objections? .. -~·-

Ml~. l..EACHMAl\1: 1\io, Your- Hono1- ..

THE COUIH: Okay. I lwve rev i ewecl the pr:.es~n tenc:e .. ' - · I r=·; ncl the l~epor .. ·t iJCCur-ate ;:mel. corTe.ct -With·

. ·13 .Jasor1 Cr-ol.icl'l. . . . . . . ~ ·the e)<cept ion of the· points we lust ta !·keel ·about. OrJ ·the~ tl "' ..... cr- i irwl ·_l1 i stor-y scor·e for. ~0111111 itt i ng the acts,· ~Nh i I e o-il lS

· pr-obation i ,., another- of'fensl~.

0n'.'~ia6,si78i·:\~~x;t~~~g·~~~~~~~dZ~1-iii~;~:~i·~:~i;: 1 t~~c:~ .. ;·:rJ1~\::·~ 1 ) 1 S'J::i~c-?;t)oil\. t.;~;·q·;~~·;.··~l1e'~:'Q.·:':s.·.: .. ·.::.~~!\te.6c,l]\9':i\G.i(~cJ~~:!.::i)\~s·:c:~.s/ aiJ!e .. r)~-~d- .•. ·: '18 ·~

/;5II)~};s·9~·~·:!fQ .. EY~1·~ ~.~~~:\,;f.¢,gpJ>·~: ;; W :'~ .'~·}:s;:~·,;:::: .: ~ -~ C~~'):.1f:Lsif~L!ED';g~(LI;:.Ii·L~{l?r.t0~'~0\.~~s:J~·Y· .. ,::.~r·:~.2.-,..:_·i ·

20 · t:lll-e:rg·cr:; del·:;·eie··:·,,~an·ge:Jfor7.;~fcust'cidy(/;·•s(:-l"tf8.:}tc)'Ji3s··::> · ~:J~JJ··•·.;:-: c(·,:·~:, ~~.~~.:~~ :·t· ·-:?~ .~:. :i ;_.:;: ·. ~~ .. ··:~~:..1 :;.;,::~~ .:.-~·~?·t.£.;"'.~,;-.,_,. ..... ~ · --·· ~ ··-: :·· ,.. · · .,. ·- -~ · .... ·- -~.. ""': ~"' :' · of"·· + f,.l":~~·~.-.\<<t;':'_: ..

23 The Defencl<Jrrt . is' ine I i'g i b I e for- pr-obation: . ., Sup8r~v i sec! Te I e~se· is f'i vc year-~!·~ ·. 24 .·

- - -~ .,. ------------ --'----· Todd ^[1] Anck~r"SQI} ltMI\, CRI\ G86:..0605~ (432) 'i.} ::~-c.:..-:. ~~\ :-; /.

- ~- -ooo11- RI-\J f:':"J~9_c·u~i'i~:i:lf 1 1?$;:T8i.le~::~?~l.P)-/\1?~!?~·9.?.;,·~.?;;·9r~~s}'.::'.,; ,. case 7:1. --------------------------·----~-----~· -~ cleg,-ee,s, an c.1ssoc i ate '.s degi-ee c.rt a j un i 01- col l·ege_ in I ().wa ,· 1 ~ the Un i ver's i ty. o-F -So(rtll. -- ·'· 2 ·ancl Jchen he p 1:1yed basebal I at 3 Dakota. - He actua I I y Elpp 11 eel to wol-k l""ol- ··the Un i tecl StateS .

!I •. Bol-der· I:Jatxo I .

5 6 He he's. pI ayed semi- pi-o basepa I I , ti" i e'cl ·to he I p "':. this. 111an who h~s a . baseba I ,· ac<ilclemy. ·tllef·e in ·~San M~C.11-c6s.: '7 . - . ....

9 n ^[0] tile gentle1112111 --·they call· ~in1 Cool~ie. ··That's his.· n i cl<nt:une -- has just .. gl-eat; things to s21y +about:·h i And 111: _ · ~; ..... .... -· r~ea I Ly, ·th i s is ·the type ·or ·til i n~J where i 'f they '10 n COLI I d r i I ill ·.a sentencing ansJ show it to 'peop I.e. in high ...

12 schoo I , tll.i s would be a goocl one., <:mel k i:ncl . of te IJ high - j 13 . schoo I. 1<. ids, you k11ow, tl1 i 'S~ is ~llat. ca·n happen -to ~ou wllen I '14 j -l t

that's what's happened .. 13ut I think he's· con11n i ttecl to t1-y i ng to~ atone 1·1ot · only ·to the .cour~t. to his.'fami ly, but to the citizer1s_o"f .:. ' .· this couiTtry. cincl try·. to -.:.. · t1-y to he I p in-this s I tuat·i on.

'18 ..... An c1 so fweFVii"oTi~fiT;I1-8'5T:-~·:~F11"t3:"'76.,..8Eii::-";lJ'''Eo';.:'G·Gi iS"s :r:·act,~'~ ·i~er~~·eiJ·c~i h:~F''Ii- i -i,;~.:.,.n:i ·, . ~. ·

. '19 .,. '"" -~<-~ ·.~;,' :';t~~~i~ ;:;,:·~:;';:··~~1C ~,.::.:.,;~;:;.;:: ~,;:~:.~:~:~.~·.:~~~~~:--·~c·;~~.;;{:.• ~. :','.,,~ ~:·:·.;:_··:· ~' f."/4·:;, ~ !: ~~•· ;. \,:.~ .'c·4..' . . .t ; ·\<) < <,:·.~·~,-:: F ::/ •j . 20 t:<~.1 1 .~;::q_o:~;tollJi;oJ~i~&I)~Y;g~~i'~.§~lrte(~\?'~;·~;i~j~;;~)J~j'.;?~~.£:.9:,~·¢:;:t'?l···. · ..

~:t I.J. r:};:c.()u.~r~}f.;~~FINf~~ :;.~::~~g~~q~sJ·l i~p;r:?~~/~r-:: ';/_ ~ 22 t.:~riT~::.(~,i-\,~WMti~'·t2:.t?J::C!9.~{~~t~:~_;lit:/~i8'Q\~~f''i'JS~·y:er~~~i5S'{~I.~:;/·~~$SF.9:·;·"' . r~~~9,~~::~~:Ui1;:~~j~p ~~ ~~~~,:;9·P~iS:9:i~X~r;;·e,:fi}J:9;~·t..~·;, (0h:r~~;~h:$.:;,~9:~nsY~;t\~'::~: ~-~.: . An c1 . 1· 23 would ask the Cm:li-t to cl i s1n iss . the · n3ma i·n i ng. counts· t:rt tlie , 2 cone I U'S ion . · :J

:I '------------------=:___----~-----,-----------------~------c---~------~· • : h ^[*] >~ . ~f· Todd Allele I" SOil; ~~~~I\, CRR {432) p86..c0605 .. t.J:·-~ c..:.._~_:. ::~J~~

~· ___ _,._____ ___ · ____ · __ . _, ___. _____ , ·' 2 c I i e11t want to spend 11 is time? Ml~. 1-IH\SHBt:I~GEI\: You1_-. l-Ion or-, he re~quesJs B i u. · _;

3 5 THE COURT:: AI I right. '111 hot· clepc.11-:-t i ng f1-onl LJ1e ~- .... ~- 6 n~conunencled sentence.

7 PLwsuant to ·the Sentencing l~efonn Act o-r-- ·r9.84., . have cons i cle1~ecl in. an ~clv i ?OI"Y ctlfJ.:Jc i ty, <:1ncl t:.l11~. U wh i ell sentencing~ r=-aetol-s · s.et- fon~h • in ·r i3, U1:ri tecl. Stc:rtes Cocle:<. 9 -- - · ..... .. - ..,. . . - ·' Section 3553(a)-; wht.~1l I have consiclel-ed ~in 817:-ivinq _c:Lt a . I clo ri ncl the gt:1 i cle U ne-·1-ange ·111 ~ ·r·1 1-easonaiJ I e seritence -- ancl '12 til is case t.o . be fCI i 1-- ancl r:-easonab I e . ·the r=:o I I owing

l3 sentence . is i 1nposecl: !

'14.

'15

'16 .•

'17. - I w i I I 1-econHnencl ~·that he be p I aced at the ·m(~n ' s -~

! • 1f3 fac i I i ty at i g Spl- i ng unt i I he. becomes e I i ~Jib 1·e t.o

'19 pa1-t i c i pate in the 500-llour- clrug. t1-eat111e1T~ p1~ogn:un. and tlx~n . 20 be ·tl-ansfeiTecl: ·to a faci I i ·ty tl}at l)as ·that +pr,_ogi-C.llll"; ·that:' he

gets a I so eclucc.i·t ion oncl job tr:a in i ng. ·! . Upon 1::_e I ea:;e fl-om ·the Bul-emi of' Pi- i sons.· you+ 1-e ~ ·~

2 '') _f.__ .... • . 't· ~- _;,.. 23 placed on.supel-_yised 1-el_ease fol-_a ·teni1 oi=-·five- yeC:il-s.

,_ ' ') L[ The ~Jenel-a I ·ter-m;:; of superv i secL 1-e.l ease · cll-e those .. .,. set 'for" the U.S. Cour-ts fol- the Western D i s·tl- i ct _of. Je)<a::r. ~

·----------'---·-----------'---'-------~----,---'---~--·. Todd And~ I" SOil., RMIZ, CfUZ (432) GSG-,..0605~

: ): _; -~.:~..;... ~-; --~~~,t.·:.·

-~·-

EX PARTE IN THE 51st District Court

OF STERLING COUNTY, TEXAS VINCENT FLORES, APPLICANT

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR.WIUT 01:;' ERROR CORAM NOBIS OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE MOTION TO WITHDRAW GUILTY PLEA The defendant, VINCENT FLORES filed a Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis or in the Alternative Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea.

The Court having review file finds said motions should be DENIED. i .

.IT IS ACCORDINGLY ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis or in the

:Alternative Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea be and the same is hereby DENIED.

JUDGE PRESIDING · XC: Allison Palmer

· Vincent Flores

FCI Big Spring

1nnn C:irnlot- 1hronno ~. ;;r' J ..... .:... 1 • .,..~.a."-'L•-' ...._. "'·' .&...._...,...,.._...,,~ Big Spring, TX '79720

' I '

'·

••

CAUSE NO. 746ST

I THE STATE OF TEXAS IN THE DISTRICT COURT § §

vs. 51st JUDICIAL DISTRICT §

§ ;VINCENT FLORES § OF STERLING COUNTY, TExAS

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS; OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE;

MOTION TO VACATE ORDER OF DEFERRED ADJUDICATION COMMUNITY SUPERVISION

' TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: r

COMES NOW, VINCENT FLORES, the Defendant/Probationer in the above styled Cause (hereinafter "Flores"), and pursuant to this Court's inherent power, authority, and interest in preventing injustice, hereby files this Verified Petition for Writ of Error . Coram Nobis; or, in the alternative; Motion to Vacate Order of Deferred Adjudication Community Supervision, and in support thereof, Flores would respectfully show the Court as follows:

I. On October 6, 2006, at approximately 7:30pm, a Sterling County Police Officer conducted a warrantless seizure and search of Flores's person, as well as a warrantless search of Flores's vehicle (as more fully detailed at Part VI of this· motion, infra). Flores asserts that no legitimate basis existed which warranted the Officer s ^[1] aforementioned actions (no degree of "reasonable suspicion" -or- "probable cause" -or...: "consent" -or- "concern for officer safety" existed which justified the searches conducted).

II. As a result 'of the above referenced warrantless and unconsented search of Flores s vehicle, the searching Officer found a personal use quantity of Marijuana, and a personal use ·quantity of cocaine in Flores's vehicle. Upon discovery of the aforementioned Marijuana and cocaine, Flores was arrested by the searching Officer and charged as follows:

(Page 1 of ll) '(A) For the Marijuana, Flores was charged--by Information issued in The

County Court of Sterling County, Texas, CAUSE NO. 362706--with a Class "B" Misdemeanor in violation of Texas Health and Safety Code §481.12l(b)(l); and,

;(B) For the cocaine, Flores was charged--by Indictment issued in The District

Court 51st Judicial District of Sterling County, Texas, CAUSE NO. 746st (hereinafter "this Cause")--with a "Third Degree" Felony in violation of Texas Health and Safety Code §481.' 115 (c)".

III. On May 29, 2007, Flores agreed to plead guilty to the cocaine offense :charged in this Cause. In exchange for that plea Flores agreed to accept the ; imposition of a three (3) year term of Deferred Adjudication Com~unity

Supervision (hereinafter ·"Supervision").

IV. On February 4, 2008, this Court--upon motion by Flares--granted Flores a reduction in, and early termination from, the aforementioned three (3) year term of Supervision.

v. Flores now asserts that his guilty plea to the cocaine offense charged . in this Cause was not knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily entered, and that:

(1) This Court's Order imposing the three (3) year term of Supervision; (2) This Court's "findings of guilt" in this Cause; and,

(3) Any and all forms Flores signed (which purported to "waive" certain

rights of Flores's;

are all constitutionally invalid because:

(A) Flores was never forewarned--either by this Court, the State

Attorney's Office, or Defense Counsel Fred Brigman (hereinafter "Mr.

(Page of 11) Brigman") --of the completely unexpected collateral consequences· he would suffer in subsequent prosecutions as a result of his guilty plea--and this Court's findings of guilt--in this Cause;

(B) Flores's reasonable understandings and reasonable expectations~-

regarding the effects and consequences of his aforementioned guilty plea and this Court's findings of guilt--would have in subsequent criminal proceedings have been violated; and,

existed for Flores to move to suppress the drug evidence involved in this Cause, and that suppression of the drug evidence would lead to disiJlissal of the aforementioned Indictment against Flores in this Cause.

VI. Flores asserts that because his guilty plea in this Cause (for the reasons set forth herein) .was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntariky entered, then this Court's findings of guilt--along with the imposition of the aforementioned three (3) year term of Supervision-~are constitutionally void, - and the Order imposing said term of Supervision must therefore be vacated

based upon the following facts, to wit:

(1) Moments prior to Flores's arrest on October 6, 2006 (at approximately

(2) In response to the arresting officer's questions Flores stated he was

waiting for his Cousin who was then in the Town and Country convenienc.e store. The arresting officer then instructed Flores to walk to the front of the convenience store.

·~.

(Page of 11) :(3) At the front of the convenience store the arresting officer asked Flores

whether any of the vehicles in the stores parking lot were his. Flores answered "yes" and then pointed out his car, a Ford Contour.

(4) The arresting officer told Flores "I'm going to put you in handcuffs

b!;!cause I want to search your car." .Flores asked "why" and the arresting officer responded "because we've had some complaints about ."vandalism." (5) After pat frisking and handcuffing Flores (possibly for officer safety)

the arresting officer proceeded to search Flores's vehicle, whereafter the drugs--specifically the cocaine which. supports the offense charged ~ this Cause--was discovered, and resulted in Flores' arrest and subsequent prosecution in this Cause.

(6) At no time during the above described interactions between Flores and the

arresting officer, did Flores do anything that would have warranted the officer handcuffing Flores or searching Flores's car. Flores never gave the officer consent to search his car, nor did the arresting officer--at any time--have lawful justification (meanin~ reasonable suspicion, probable cause, consent, concern for officer safety, etc.) to conduct a warrantless search of Flores's person or of Flores's car.

(7) Had Mr. Brigman told Flores that the arresting officer's above described

conduct justified suppression of th~ drug evidence found in Flores's car, ~ Flores would never have agreed to plead guilty in exchange for the aforementioned three (3) years of Supervision, Flores would instead have insisted that:

(A) Mr. Brigman file a motion· to suppress the drug evidence--on the

basis that the arresting officer lacked any reasonable suspicion, probable cause, consent~ or concern for officer safety--that otherwise may have justified the Officer searching Flores ^[1] s .person ·and. car (all in violation of_ Flores s Fourth Amendment right to be . free from unlawful searches and seizures). And,

(Page 4 of 11) (B) Flores would have insisted on going to trial rather than entering

what' Mr. Brigman called a ^[11] plea of convenience in this Cause.

(8) In addition to the above described Fourth Amendment violations--which Mr.

Brigman never informed Flores could result in suppression of the drug evidence and dismissal of the Indictment in this Cause--Mr. Brigman also misadvised Flores about the effects his guilty. plea, and the effects this Court's findings of guilt, would have on Flores in future criminal proceedings.

(9) Flores asserts that Mr. Brigman ^[1] s affirmative misadvise (as described

below) invalidates the knowing, intelligent, and voluntary nature of Flores's guilty plea in this Cause, as well as invalidates this Courtls findings of guilt, the Order imposing the three (3) y~ar term of Supervision, and all. "waiver of rights" forms Flores signed in this Cause--because Mr. Brigman expressly informed Flores that:

(A) If Flores entered . a "plea of convenience" guilty plea to the drug

offense charged in this Cause (in exchange for the (3) year term· of Supervision); and,

(B) If Flores "stayed out of trouble" while on Community Supervision,

Mr. Brigman assured Flores that he (Mr. Brigman) absolutely would: (i) File for early termination o.f Flores s Community Supervision; (ii) Ask this Court to allow Flores to withdraw his guilty plea;

and, (iii) If this · Court granted Mr. Brigman's request that Flores be

permitted to withdraw his guilty. plea, Flores would have· no conviction in this Cause that could be used against him in future criminal proceedings.

(10) Mr. Brigman further explicitly informed Flores that if this Court were to grant Flores the aforementioned early termination and withdrawal of I I

(Page of 11) his guilty plea, Flores's .criminal record in this Cause would be "wiped clean'' and Flores would suffer no collateral consequences as a result of him pleading guilty in this Cause.

VII. Flores asserts that Mr. Brigman's above described expre~s representations, as well as Mr. Brigman's complete failure to advise Flores ;regarding the existence of a viable basis to move for suppression of the drug , evidence and dismissal of the Indictment in this Cause, ate the sole reasons

why Flores chose to plead guilty, rather than insisting that Mr. Brigman move to suppress the drug evidence, move to dismiss the indictment, and proceed to trial in this Cause. Flores further asserts that had Mr. Brigman not. advised Flores that if this Court were to allow Flores to withdraw his guilty plea- thereby "wiping away" Flores ^[1] s criminal record in a manner that would not effect him in future· criminal proceedings--Flares would riot have entered a "plea of convenience" guilty plea, he instead would have insisted on going to trial on the drug offense charged in this Cause.

VIII. Flores asserts that as a result of Mr. Brigman's above described express representations--and material omissions--Flares developed certain reasonable understandings and resonable expectations, namely:

(1) Flores r~asonably understood and reasonably expected that:

(A) Mr. Brigman was at all times representing Flores to the best of his

abilities, and in Flores's best interests; (B) Should this Court allow Flores to withdraw his guilty plea in this

Cause, Flores's criminal record would be "wiped clean"; and, (C) If Flores s record was "wiped clean"--by withdrawal of his guilty

plea in this Cause--then he would not have any "conviction" that could be used against him in any future criminal proceeding . . !

(Page 6 of 11)

-~····~··

IX. Flores asserts that his "reasonable understanding-s" and "reasonable ·expectations" (as described above) were violated when:

· (1) After being federal charged in a multi-count, multi-defendant

Indictment--issued in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (Midland-Odessa Division), Criminal Case No. M0-12-CR-00011 (hereinafter "federal case")--Flores was served with a 21 U.S.C. §851 information notifying him that his Deferred Adjudication guilty plea in· this Cause was considered a "conviction" and would be used to enhance Flores's statutory mandatory minimum sentence from 10 years, up to 20 years (see attached Exhibit A);

(2) As a means of allowing Flores the opportunity to avoid receiving the

enhanced 20 year S·tatutory mandatory minimum sentence, the government offered to withdraw the aforementioned §851 notice of enhancement in exchange for Flores agreeing to the following terms:

(A) Plead guilty to Count One of. the federal Indictment (conspiracy to

distribute a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C §846); (B) Waive every right Flores had to challenge his federal sentence and

conviction on direct appeal; (C) Waive every right Flores had. to challenge his federal sentence and

conviction in any collateral proceeding. (3) At sentencing in the federal case Flores's guilty plea in this Cause was

used to increase his Criminal History Score--from "Category I" Criminal History up to "Category II" Criminal history--the effect of which resulted in Flores's otherwise applicable sentencing guideline range of 168-210 months being increased to 188-235 months (a Category I Criminal History--combined with . Flores's offense level of 35--would result_.in a · guideline sentencing range of 168-210 months; while a Category II *32 (Page J of ll) i I J-''\ I

Criminal. History--combined· with Flores ^[1] s offense level of 35--resulted in a guideline sentencing range of 188-235 months. Because Flores received a ",low end" sentence of 188 months rather than a "low end" sentence of 168 months, Flores was prejudiced by receiving an extra 20 months as a result of his guilty plea--and/or this Court's findings of guilt--in this Cause. See attached Exhibits B and C.

X. Flores asserts that the federal government's reliance upon his guilty plea --and or this Court's findings of guilt--in this Cause:

(1) As a "conviction"--for purposes of enhancing his statutory mandatory

minimum sentence from 10 years up to 20 years; and, (2) As a "sentence"--for purposes of increasing his Criminal History score •'

from Category I up to Category II;

violated Flores's above described "reasonable understandings" and "reasonable l- , expectations" regarding ·the . impact his Deferred Adjudication guilty plea--

and/or this Court ^[1] s findings of guilt--in this Cause would have in future criminal proceedings.

XI. Flores further asserts that if not for the federal government's utilization of his invalid· guilty- plea--:and/or this Court s invalid findings of guilt--in this Cause, to enhance his statutory mandatory minimum sentence, Flores never would have agreed to plead. guilty in the federal case under the ahove described conditions. Instead, Flores would. have entered an "open" guilty plea--without waiver of any of his appellate or collateral rights--which, in turn, would have resulted in Flores not having his direct appeal dismissed due to the above "waiver," and would have resulted in Flores receiving a lower sentence in the federal case.

XII. Flores requests that this Court find that his guilty plea--as well as this :·/ Court's ·,findings. of guilt--in this Cause was "void ab initio," due to· the

(Page 8 of 11) extent of "collateral consequences" which Flores was never advised--either by this Court, the State Attorney's Office, or Mr. Brigman--he would be subjected in ·future criminal proceedings, arid because of the unknowing, to unintelligent, and involuntary guilty plea Flores entered in this Cause--as a result of Mr. Brigman's ineffectiveness, misadvise, and withholding of relevant information (information that would have changed the outcome of this Cause, as well as changed the outcome of Flores's. federal case).

LEGAL ARGUMENT

XIII. The Texas courts have routinely found that when· a defendant is not *· adequately apprised of the consequences of his guilty plea, or that he was not fully informed (or otherwise mislead) by defense· counsel or the Court, the defendant's plea is constitutionally invalid. See Anderson v. State, 182 S. W.

3d 914 (Tex. Grim. App. 2006). This is in keeping with the general principle that a defendant must be fully informed of the consequences attendant from his guilty plea.

I· XIV.

The writ of error coram nobis is an extraordinary remedy available to a petitioner no longer in custody who seeks to vacate his criminal conviction on c~nstitutional grounds. See United States v. Hatten, 167 F. 3d 884, 887 n. 6 (5th Cir 1999). Where a defendant is no longer in custody on the conviction under attack, coram nobis is the appropriate vehicle under_which to challenge the validity of the conviction i f the defendant s guilty plea--and/or the Court's findings of guilt--were premised upon misinformation (or the I withholding of material information), and for claims regarding ineffective

assistance of counsel relative to the validity of the guilty plea--and/or the Court's findings of guilt. See Campos-'-Conrrada v. Thaler, No. 3:12-CV-4190, "'' 2012 U.S.: Dist. Lexis 166457 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 23, 2012).

I, (Page 9 of 11)

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED,· and in light of the foregoing facts and legal arguments, Flores prays that this Court will enter an order vacating the May 2.9, 2007, Order which imposed Flores s three (3) year term of Deferred Adjudication Community Supervision, and that this Court will grant Flores any other relief to which he is justly entitied.

Respectfully submitted, Vincent Flores

Federal Register Number 88010-280 Federal Correctional Institution 1900 Simler Avenue Big Spring, Texas 79720 VERIFICATION §

STATE OF TEXAS

COUNTY OF HOWARD §

ON THIS DAY personally appeared VINCENT FLORES, who, after being placed under oath, stated the following:

"My name is VINCENT FLORES, Federal Inmate Register Number 88010-28(1', and I am the Defendant/Probationer in this Cause (Cause No. 746ST, in the District Court, 51st Judicial District of Sterling County, Texas), and I have been so at all material times relevant to this proceeding."

"I have read the foregoing "Verified Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis; or, in the Alternative; Motion to Vacate Order of. Deferred Adjudication Community Supervision" and every statement, fact, and assertion contained herein is w1thin my personal knowledge and is completely truthful and correct."

Vincent Flores

Sworn to and subscribed before me on NOTARY PUBLIC

(Page 10 of 11)

CERTIFICKfE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and exact copy of the above and foregoing ' instrument was sent via First Class Mail, postage pre-paid, this 31st day of

October, 2014, to the Sterling County District Attorney's Office at: 124 Beauregard Avenue, San Angelo, Texas 76903, and all in accordance with Texas Rules ,of Criminal Procedure.

Vincent Flores

(Page 11 of 11)

( I

)

Case 7:12-cr-00011-RAJ ·Document 298 Filed 06/19/12 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRlCT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TE~S MIDLAND-ODESSA DMSION

UNITED ST.ATES OF AMERlCA,

Plaintiff,

Defendant.

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY CHARGES:

COUNT ONE

~t;~~~gyr~::~~·~£~:~-~ ~)i That on or about May 29, 2007, Defendant, VINCENTFLORES aka "Ceniso", was . 7onvicted of Possession of a Controlled Substance, in violation of 481.115( c) HSC; said conviction

was filed in the 51st District Comt of Sterling County, Texas, in Case No. 746.i?A'.tflie-·aiid·'correct ~ ·•,..« .. :f-:.: )·'·.>:)~...-~ '·.'~--.~""':·· ';:.' ~~·.~;;·.~~-~ r:~o#Y:~~~·p:ga0¥~gli}~~tJ~~#sl~8~~(f~~r;~fc9::·~s:E~1.~1f!.~b!'~.:-J

The United States Attorney for the Western District ofTexas, files this Information pursuant to the provisions ofTitle 21, United States Code, Section 851, for enhancement of punishment.

Respectfully submitted, ROBERT PITMAN

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY BY: /s/

Russell D. Leachman Assistant U.S. Attorney Texas State Bar No. 112069710 601 NW Loop 410, Suite 600 San Antonio, Texas 78216-5512 (210) 384-7022

(210) 384-7028 FAX *38 .F:..···

'. '

Case 7:12-cr-00011-RAJ Document 298 Filed 06/19/12 Page 2 of 2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 19th day of June, 2012, a tme and conect copy of the foregoing instrument was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF System which will transmit 'notification of such filing to the following CM/ECF participant:

Steve Hershberger

600 N. Marienfeld St., Ste 850

Midland, TX 79701

S tevehersh@sbcglobal.net

Is/ RUSSELL D. LEACHMAN . Assistant U.S. Attomey *39 a

.. --· · ~:,a: ~ ~o 7 · FILED -.At 0 c ~'lo'c'o;,; · · E 1

C N ASE 0. COUNT SINGL COUNl'. :;:USAN Y../YAIT" INCIDENT NO./Tfu'l: 010 615 3315 E> ~~~t ?k.:ri-:, ::::rf!!~··· ;>:,::·=; ~~-LY. ... - .• -J g Tf:_>~<J.:; ·.ty, ^[1] Co· § IN THE 51ST DISTRICT ~rHE STATE OF TEX...I\..8 § , . . ' CoURT §

V §

.,..VJ;NCENT NA VERETTE FLORES STERLING COUNTY, TEXAS §

STATE ID No.: TX07828705 § ORDER OF DEFERRED ADJUDICATION 5/29/Z007 ,Judge Presiding: HoN. BARBARA L. WALTHER Date Order Entered:

Attorney for Attorney for State: STEPHEN LUPTON FRED BRIGl\fAN Defendant: .Offense: POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE, PGl. TO-WIT: COCAINE, IN AN AMOUNT, BY

AGGREGATE WEIGHT, INCLUDING ANY ADULTERANTS AND DILUTANTS, OF ONE (1) GRAM OR MORE BUT LESS THAN FOUR {4) GRAMS

Charging Instrument: Statute for Offense: INDICTMENT 481.115(c) Health and Safety Code

Date of Offense; 10/6/2006 Degree of Offense: Plea to Offense: Findings on Deadly Weapon: 3RD DEGREE FELONY GUILTY N/A Terms of Plea Bargain: DEFEND.AJ.~T PLACED ON THREE (3) YEARS DEFERRED ADJUDICATION COMMUNITY

SUPERVISON AND.ORDERED TO PAY A FINE OF $1;000.00 AND RESTITUTION OF $140.00 Findings on 1• Paragraph: Plea to 1.t Enhancement Enhancement Paragraph: · N/A N/A ADJUDICATION OF GUILT DEFERRED; to znrt 2nd Paragniph: Findings on Enhancement/Habitual Plea. EnhancementJHabit;ual Paragraph: . N/A NIA DEFENDANT PLACED ON COMMUNITY SUPERVISION.

PERIOD OF COMMUNITY ,SUPERVISION: THREE (3) YEARS Restitution Payable to: Court Costs: Restitution: $See attached VICTIM (see below) t8J AGENCY/AGENT (see below) $ 140.00 : . $ 1,000.00 Bill of . · (seG Cond. C.S.)

Costs

Sc::~; Offender Registration Requirements do not apply to the Defendant. TEX. CODE CRD.f. PROC. chapter 62 The age 6fthe victim at the time of the offense was N/A

N/ADAYS ·Time Credited: NOTES:N/A

All pe~tinont lnfonnntion, names nnd assessment$ indicated above aro incorporated htto tho langua::c or 1-he judgment below by reference.

This cause was called for trial in Sterling County, Texas. The State appeared by her District Attorney as named above. -----··--·------ -·- ------- --------------- ~---------------------------------·----·-·---------·----

Pncel nO ' ~ . . . . , ~·· ... '(,, . !r. . ,"~ " ' '' . ': . \~ ,, ~ l .. • t-uea ~'~ !-'age L. or j p .. 3 . .__, Counsel/'Waiver of Counsel (select one)

lSI Defendant appeared in person with Counsel. Defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived the right to representation by counselin writing in open court .. Both parties announced ready for trial. Defendant waived the right of trial by jury and entered a plea as indicated

.above. The Court admonished the Defendant as :required by law. lt appeared to the Court that Defendant was mentally com'petent to stand trial, made the plea freely and voluntarily, and was aware of the consequences of this plea. The Court received the plea and entered it ofrecord. Having heard the evidence.subrnitted, the Court FINDS such evidence substantiates Defendant's guilt. The Court FINDS that, in this cause, it is in the best interest of society and Defendant to defer proceedings without entering an adjudication of guilt and tO place Defendant on community supervision. . The Court FINDS the Presentence Investigation, if so ordered, was done according to the applicable provisions of TEX. CODE

Cnll..r. Pnoc. a:1·t. 42.12 § 9. · · ·; The Court ORDERS that Defendant is given credit noted above for the time spent incarcerated. The Court ORDERS Defendant to pay all fines, court costs, and restitution as indicated above. The Court ORDERS that no judgment shall be entered at this time. The Court further ORDERS that Defendant be placed on

community supervision for the adjudged period so long as Defendant abides by aud does not violate the terms and conditions of eo~m.unity S).lpervision, See TEX. CoDE CruM. Pnoc. art. 42.12 § 5(a).

Furthermore, the following special findings or orders apply: NONE

Rendered and entered on May 29, 2007, but signed this day of ~ ~ · . .~~ , -

JUDGE PRESIDING 1.

*41 -~ #A _p.4 .. _ ...

NO. 746 IN THE DISTR~CT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS STERLING COUNTY, TEXAS

VS. 51ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

VINCENT NAVERETTE FLORES

ATTACH~NTTOJUDGEMENT DATED--'v~-e.e-t Z-""1. "2-c>C:Y( \ FINGERPRINT OF DEFENDANT RIGHT THUMB -~~~~

Deputy. S'T'I!FLIJ IG-County Sheriff's Office

J~c:r~ - - - - - · - - · - - - - - - - · - - - - - - - - - - - - - · - - - - - - - - - - - - - · *42 ~·

/ . ·:· - ... 'I If\1 Tl-lr::: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.

FOI\ THE WESTEr\N DISTRICT OF TE'XAS · MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION 2 ')

. .J UNITED STATES OF.AMERICA ) M0-12-CI\~011 ~· ·4 ) )

,- vs. ) . J ').

6 ) . )

e- 6EFORE.THE HONORABLE ROBERT JUNElL . UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE In Midlandp Tex~s

~) '10 ~}<~i~}l~~i~Q'~.~[~.P~.::~r~''Sh~i¢:80.1:\NS.:)' . . . . · · .. - '1'1 As:-... st'anr· Uill':t'ecl· ~tat·es-.A~ctol'n<::y . ·. 601 ·f\1. \AI. Loop. 410, su·i te · :· . san Antonio, Texas. ·78216 · ·

'12 . ·. ~ ~210) 384-7016 .·~ '13 .• . f:;:Mw~~~~:sT~:\f.E:;;~ ~~S.-8$I~~~-~J 1 ·4 Attorney at Law~ ~ ·. 600 f\J. ~~a,~ienfelcl, suite 8-50

'15

Midland, .Texas·. 79701 ·

'16 Cl-32) 570-4014

'17

COURT REPORTEI\~ MR" TODD ANDERSON, "RMR ~- CRf( united Sbl tes CoLwt Repo r-re r

'18 · ~200 E. W.a-1'1 , Hm; lJG. . • 19 Midl~nd, Te~Js 79701. .- (~32) 636-0605 20

2'1

22 The above-Styl od and ·numb~1·ed cause .Was" l"epOrted ·by .• 1 ') ') L.J

24 mechanical stenograp·hy ·and prodLicecl by computer .. -~ ' •! . _ _.....· ' ~~--=-------------,-----~-----~-~--~--;

;., \ (432).6-86-0GOS *43 .. · ... rJOOLt.-y<A.J i(Q~?f~~h-;;;i·li.jis·:~};ll~~!/;. --,~J:J-t~-:-~·~·-:r~9-~T.e.::~J:·::oLS .. l\ · / Case; 7:12 -· . . - - - - - - - · - - · - · - - - · - - , - - - - - - - - ----"---,.---~-,--,----~--- --.,.,....- what pol-t ions of those w i I I be c1 i su-i buted to those _pel-sons. 1 ~- ·- ...... ') ,_ li-IE COURT:. Uncle!- App I i cat i ~late . 2 un·cle ,- J Bl. 1 · j I of the Sentencjng GLiidel ine~, it:p,-ovi.cles, "To .qualify for '') .j an adjustment. ur]clei-· this section, ·tile. clef·encle:mt m~1st ha~E_,. • • · . 4 r- been the, or·gan i ze1-, _.1 caclel-: n1anage1-, ?r supc1-:\i i sol- of..: one·?, 0 lllol-e othel-. pa1:-t i c i pants. ·An upwar-d depa,-·tlll-e m_ay~ be G 7 WEHTanted, howeve1-, in ·the case of a clefemlant who cl i cl. not·

~ o ,-ga n i ze . I eacl , manage , o ,- supe nt i se lJI'l~)tilGll:.. .pa ,--t i r: i p;~ n t.

8 .• 9 but who neven:.ll(:) I ess e~<e,-c i sGcl ma11agement n'~Sj)ons i l}'i I i Ly. ..

'10 ove1- ·the pr·opcr·ty. a,s:;:;ets, 01- act i vi ·ties ~of a c1- i iill'na I -~ - ·.

'1'1 or·ganization." .,. ..

'12 The Coul-t ·r=inds· that ·thel-e 1s signi ficar1t eviclcnce ~ 13 conta i nc::cl in the pi-esentence r:epol-t that the Defendant was a pei-sml who "'cl i ciF~~<en;: i se 1nan~gement ·,-espons_i b i I i.~t;·\ O\~er

·111 .. · ... -- ... ---· . . . . . . '15 pi-opei-ty assets, that being H1e coca inc that was coming into . . .. ~ ' ~ 1G the United Ste:i·tes, allcl oveiTU.I es y"oul-. objection. . . f:Y6'LiJ~:h&;2P:lJJf5j~€2£!'iJo.OJ~,;-~:~~·\~ G;.:·~~ o:;}~:.i::t~Jj::,'c~,;·i .i!l;iJi:~·.r::~·~ _.~ · · • '17 Wt~ft~~iOJ] YJ.;t1S8 Yili~;~ro){;~~-~~ ~'9Hb l3.1~f,{f.::~?~'/:'~~ ~ n ?;t,::-~.!T~-~~-~~;:: i]l)'f:iN-~Jf t?i~i,:::6:6YJ :: :·/ l8 19 !-J~~iK~1\.~h~-:Kil.9i~~c1T?.I.1'~.:~.~~~::\t,l.iEJ.:~:;;~¥{M_~iYn~!~1{~1'i.9¢T·g·~:.ri!??.: .. · . . 0··' 3 ~'-iQ~~:0~.~:xg,.~r;rro,:p~~~!~:ct:~,":;:,·:/-ff:~~~~~~-.~.~\'f~J51:v;..z~:;~:.::;.yp.LJ_':: .. :I:!~ns(./ ~ 20 2'1 -~ifEU~·:.}~t.~9.9J~0Tn\~:?s:;:::;~"~:~o_l\ay.:~J·:>~-~.~_~F·a·9~::8·r;)h'\~~E? .. a~i;Ar1ci:>£h~t) ·.-) .... ) ~~~'!;~:~~~~::~';~~~-:'~,-~~5§Sii9P~t:?:1SY'"~f-~-~%:;;,i'.~t;?~~,~fi2;1•r,;est i..'-. [:p Q+Oc to be 1;, ;;,.6,:·,;.<,- ;2.Q0.9 -~:;;, .. ,

23 ·• · - 24 r;~Qn,¢;;}~b:If;-,:rgi~n-)B:~~i~l~·].:;s:\~:i.9~~~-~~::·-~?n:'L~;~;)_:~-~·~:~:~HR:-~f~!\~ 8 -· ~~-a·c:iJ~i.J\ij·:;;::.P-']-¢t:}v..~·s,);Q_b~':tfJ.~?J:E1f?\S~b~~ri:~)l~:B:I/ti~(l.~~i;,El,J,,::.:R::i.~?~~~;··i;·¢.·~~:;;Gpli.t;:~·_::· .. / .. __ _:_· . --:;r.-----·- ·•· Todd Ancle rsqn! 1\MF\_, CRI\

*44 . ..-:..

/ oooJ:t-Fu\J (~.~2Liii{l@'i'it~?fls·:~:I~IT8.t.r;;:~t0::r;oT~{!i~~l-g-&::i:~~~;6-r~3p'>:: ·/~ ~ - case 7:L::

•.. -----'----------··-~-'-= ·-·--------- .· ~

r9J~iB;%#.~i~i:F-[7i~.i~:~p:l~J~;~y:::.:r~t:e~~-~ 1 D·;;~~?\i1'~1;!}i;!~:¢·~;.;9,~t~'i;1~ai'l.t.,j:i~;~oc~~;1;8_9;.i:J-~-y:p.'?:~:/· · · r;;~~Y;i4J:g;9::;~t~99r:.:s~9o,:s,EQ.{i}~I~OJ~:~f~~t:i~iJ,g9J:c.·~·~.r..:o,\.·:~,l' , - 2

J 6~,S].K90~~;{.0~:~2~G-~~~!~~eyi;~~~il:l-~§iJ;~~:~~)~{~~~~-G~~~j~;1:.'t6·c,i\:i::yj;§:~0'tTlff;:q:[7:~~·$.::~~,c··tl::r\·9fi_

G . ~~~·~f~~~~~~}~~"~·~,E~a~;b~6ii3~~oB\:'r~~B .,,l~:;;,a~§:g.t;Y~i):, 9 qQ.· po:,~'J':· .. 1 '; .• I 8

9 1-\ml I -th.i nk ymw po;s i ·t ion i ~;;; they sllou I d r1ol~ .......

on I y one ·of tl1e111 sl1oul el be coui1ted; i ~:;··that

Ml~. ·IIEI~SI-IBEI~GE:R: ·Yes. One -- bo·tll f i IT ngs con1e out of the same s·tol) · in SteF I i Coui·n~y ~') . .. ./' .... .

THE COURT: Okc.1y. 1-\ncl · d i cl yoLJ n~acl· Mr·. Ci-ol.tcll.' s I. "14 n:~sponse7 '15 MR. HERSHBERGER:. Yes: What he~ is s~ying i~.lt thel-e' s the. wol-d "un I ess . " 1-\ncl i ·f ·the wol-d "un I es.s" 1 7 un I ess he 1 s sentenced on- cJ i 'ffel-ent cloys -- i f he's ·

·1s '19 sentenced on ·eli ff"'el-ellt · clays-;- then that. basi cci I I:Y cloes ~ no:t

.. 20 aiel MI-. Flol-es." But if-_it al-i·ses out of tl1e ?ame_cllat~li.ng - clocun1e1rt; then ·t11at wou I cl - ·- 2·1 then it W<JU I cl .not .count. · ..... )}~i:icflllY Ulld8i~St<Jildi nrJ; ·tl~crt hE~ Iivas 31T8StecJ 2-mel

22 23 booked i 11to St~ei-.1 i ll~J County on ~otll cll;JI-ge~l So t~1e . . -·-· . clwrg i ng -- tile cllc:wg i ng. insti-UIIlelrt · thel-e, what he would IJe · he I ci on out of ;stel-1 i ng County'+ i·t '.s on ·botll ·_-

. 2~) it's --·- boLJ1 • . ..

·.., - - - · ----·-------.---- .· ·, - (432) 686-0605 Todd Anderson, ~~~R, CI\P, *45 u~~.c: .. -\~:. :-> j 'J -- ·f..· . ~ ,:;~·~'h\:;:l . . ..... ~ .

·. COilsp i l-acy befo1-e ·the elate that. he pIed and got - .-,. n~c~ i ved ~ ~ i nvoJ ved i n it -- c.mcl • • 0 . I ·f he w;:rs I .'til i 1·11<., C:\'<.3 .. . ·"'· •.. 4 So he pI eel and he was given p1-obat ion, one case on 5 May 29th; tile othe1- one on Ju I y 25t.il. 1-\ncl · so fi-OIIl til at f i 1i1e .·. ... . pel- i od, s<Jy. Me:1y 29, · 2007, cine! you s<J i.d he was on -:- ile ··.w<.:.is · 6 . . . . ~ ·discharged fl-oln one p1-obat i 011. o1·1 l~ebatat-y 4, ·zoos. . 1: clorl' :t

7 - see whet-~ -- _I ·guess . the . seco11cl one --~Okay .. 'Tie had .5JOt 12

i3 ..

9 ·ntotTths defetT~cl proba:t i 011.

'10 On the other- ci1se, t:ile County COLwt case, Ml-. C1·ouch, whe11 cl i d· he co111e off of pr-o bat l 01'_1 011 Ula·t case?

'1'1 ,· ......

·12 Because it's. not I j steel in tiJe ~pn~sentence n~pQI-'t. •

PROBATION· OFFICER:

on the County case· on Jat1usry 30. 2008 ~- TI-lE l"''UI~T: Okay. So J<::muat-y 30,. zoo's. So ile ·. -1 G spent <:.lbout six months then Of! pt-obat ion.~ .. ~- .~

l7 Ml-. Leacil111an. otilet-· than· til is st<JtE~ment:, clo~ yo.u .! .. . ' 18 have al1y otl1e1-.• ev i clence that the· Defendant was i.nvo I vecl i J:l . . ·19 the consp i r"ucy c~ur- i 11g that time fr-:-utile? . """ ..... ·

20 Ml\ .. LEACHMAN: Otilel-· thE.l'n s i in i I <H .. pass i 119

.....

statements lils.e ·that, You1- Honor-, no. ~j~~~~~·~:!:~~:~;~~I~!:I::~;~~~;~~l;~:;~:!J!;.;~~!~;;~!;.ecy-·.-. ·

22 41. ••

2 ~) _J r~~:ETI~5c~;;;,r-;,3l:1':t~--~0~L,~;Tsf~G;~::·;;~F~i:~7rtv-9.'';.1~,9Thti?gi~~~~~~r.;;~::~_,1~r,;;~t:f!.';'··i:!J?:·t-::.~ . ·· 24 fiJ;;{g:~6';~~::·-¢'c?.:,;D :! ·;~~ ~~:t;f o,l~~~;i;~;s?:~e~'h;8K-.Ewou :t: 9';J),~-_3t09:~:i? 9::.1 :11~~~-,:::c~ ~-~-LJ 9 ·~~--: .. ·

~- (43,'2) 68,6-0605 *46 t} ::_; r:·;..:\ ~ ~~\-;.;_ tl ;_ .. . ,..: @~0-~;-~~0i6c·,;_::.:,s8),.6:~~:,;; .. _\~/ 'I t~~2_9;::;'~.l~-~i:~~:w:o'V.:}~:;H;?~e.~;<~_.,~-:)?~(,·t..~,9l~-~T?.l:t~~~tf3;I·Jv.~.);:':;_l:;_i~~-$.!~.e .. :-i:t·.·:· _ 1

') ,_ t~p:q:t:!~~-:/09:~i~;fl) 8i.i:~~~t hef($.;J!n:el ~~.~~~~r;~-9~~:f3:nr8~..r/~1:9r~.~-Pli:~·?. ~\~~'.wJ~ I::J.~_\(J9vY :: i· ') c) ~~~!,~f~S~:.'?!?I.l~,;:~·0fJ\~fZ:~\9Yr:.~~-¢.,,~_'J ,ll.~. J;f~??:f;:.#E~ ~9X':Y.!)?Gi. r:.!i.:-~.s-~: G ~~·:~l~o:::::pd.:L ll·t~i.:~· "t 6-i,· . 4 ,- ~~~~~-:::~'t~;;i)ri\~lj.~.J~;::[I;_(I.~t~~r·.S'·;;;,¢:fi::s~;\99,:Y:~~c?~:xz:jK·~:t>t~~!~:~~\!:.ar~:~-:~';·::;/-. :J .·. Any_ ot11e1- objections? ·-·

G 7 Ml<. 1-II~RSI·IBEI~GER: 1\lo otl1e1-. objections, You I- Honol- .· 8 THE COURT: Okciy; Does ·the Govel-nment have -any · • objections? 9 .. 1\lo, _Your- _l:ionor-.

'10 MF\. LEACHMAI\1: .. 'I 'I TI-lE CQUI<T :.., ~Okay. I~ l:tave n:;Vi ewecl the pFesen\~ence + '12 investigation rcpol-t ~pi-epa reel by U.S. Pi-olxrt iOn Off i eel" '13 Jaso11 Cr-ouch. ~~ f'i ncl tlie ,-epo,-t clCCLwate ancl cor-,-ect with '14 tile. e><cept ion of the poi nys we:; _just VJ. ll<.e"cl about on .. tile .

'15 c1- i 111 i nDI ll i sto,-y scor_.e fol- ~oi11111 i t·t i ng the acts wh·i I e pn H1 p1~obafi Oil i r1 <:11;10the1-· o{fense. P~r~{il~t9·,~t;:rGH~Z.~~-:~~ B~j~~;~~::~';'1~:~--r~',_~~·z_~ ~~<=~,~;:9b~~:~:tii¢:.:.~~,,3.·, 2 ~ .l[::! •. (~;t_ c~ 'X:·::~-··

'17 rr -'l"'t" • ,., ~: -~· ... :.•':"':'"1::···~-~" · ,.,, • .-";'.·· 'f"·"}" .::,.-, ;.:-, ~, ··"" ·.:·~~ ·:"";"''- ," ·•·• ""'~:-:;.?:'_"' ~., .. ,,~--- ··r_ ·.t.-•: ,.,._ ,. ... ~ ... - ...... -~ -~ ...... ·--~•: Y"' ·;;:.,- ··~;-. ·;···· ..,. ,,;... '18 f;.i:J:.~~:~~IX~''C'll~S{:';f::,?~il_:~$6¢~t'?·9AGu:i-d~·t::·,i•·,l~.~~~_;~1•?1:'Pi~~!~.~le.d:·-.·~./

20 '19 e t ·to ry<'{ca · L:T_I:l_e;:;;c:;;rji)J\ i'.n a;.h:::ITI''S o;r-::y~;,;t;a;:;_2';/.l r::r .::i.:e·~~,e~ i e~io':e£i ,~.~ Vi . • .. ~ :' · '1"'· ("1... ~\?l:'s}21:::·~3 sr:i·~·.:· C:tfi·r{E{i3"s·e: .,. ~~-;z,,~ ~ -~·; -:;-"" r:, ' -:"!;""""• • ~-; 7' • ;/7; ~ ~~ .. ._.''",:'-,--, .:;.:·, ~~-~:::1·, .r: . :·-:~~·~ ~·::; t"'-;~J.: ,,''::-~~> ~-.7;;::::.:~ ;i-·~;~, ·~t-:, -;·:;,::;~ 7, · ... ·\; · · ·; ·•· , ·:-- :-~~ ··.·r-• -...:,~·-;. <:-·• ^[1] ~- ... ."'' .• • ·. ·-,. ""'~--·· 1' ,.,. > ·, ·-~··· ~- ·: ~ .. . -~ 2'1 . t~h;;;;;;'d{~t;t/!t,h&·;gl?Wt;;J~~tWf'\~~~ft~iSr:?:~'l~\§.a.~~iii'Ji,~~ ~:~:~,\\9:WH.~} .· · ..

22 •· .. '

. )23 The Defenci...'JIJ·t is . i ne I_ tg ^[4] prob·~~ i b I e fol- drT. i

24 Supen1ised ,-elease is five· yeal-s .•. - The fine 1~ange is $20, 000. 00 l~o ~1; ·10 i I I ion.

... Todd Anciei"SQil, rZMR, CRR 0432} G.s6·-coG05 . *47 . L! :~{;_.:".tr~~}>~ '/ ~ ·i,·· . .. .......

Case 7:1.,. ··--~ .- dr2g1-ees, <:Hl ~1ssoc i ate's clegl-ee at a j Ll!l i 01- co I i'ege in l'owa, 2 and then he pI ayed baseba I I at tile Un i ve1-;:; i ty or-=- South ~ .. . ~ . .•. ,: ") Dakota. .J

Jk:) 8c·tua II y app I i eel "t?. WOI-k !:or:. uie Un'i tecl 'St.ates. --- ...

Bol-cler· ljat:.r·o I . ' He -..,. he's pI ayecl semi - p(o baseba I I , 'tl- i ed to l1e I p ·• G tli is man who has 21 baseba I.J academy then~ i 11- San Ma ,-cos.

•~ I n Ancl the. gent I eman -- they ca 1·1 him Cook i·e. , That '.s his • t) ,,I· n i ckllc1111e -- has just great -:-tl1 i ng~ to s'ay about~h i m ... 9 '10 l~ea I I y, til is. is the· typ<:i of til i llg whe1-e-. if ti18:X. .. ,.,

coulcl-fi 1111 c.1 serrtencing ancl sT-10w i.t to~·people·+1·1 high_ '· _,..,.,, sclloo I , til is would be a. goocl one, ancl kind of te I) ll i gil

'12

'13 sclmo I k i cis, . you know,· tl-i is is wl.1at call 11l::lppen to you ~wher) •.

·you 1nake choices that a1-e· the bacl cl1o ices. 1:- i ght here.. Ancl ·- .· -·1 •·. . ,. that's wilc:i ~'::; :wppened. · I ·! 16 IJut I think he~ s conlinlttccl to tl-yi n~1 to. ~rtoi'le no·t:. ... .. on I y to the Cour-t' tD h.i s F_am i I y' but to .. the c'i~t i Z81'1S' of '. ;, '17. this count1-y arrcl t1-y to·-- t1-y to lie I p in this 's i·tuati m{

·13 · 19 2 o [JGW~.:;::~:~e~~~-9}11~;'Q:f:;:-W2s~j8.9./.:p~·unv.~:LU~y:):.11:J:,~-.t:~ ~ s.e~f: . .. /· . .: t:vli&:~~YO:u·:l~cf::a~sl<~~:tli0~i:C~o.~;ir'·t{':.-to:::cons'i cieif,':~sel'it.ei1.ci.'/risi:·hi.nJ':at· Ancl so .. ·' • ~:·:~"·.b-:·::.~·:"'f . .- -."~•'·:-:r .:~_: •;- ·,. .- ~~;fr?/,::f.i·i·'~J;·;~.(,:{.~\!;''f:">'.' 1"'.· .. :,.·· -,,.,·~-; ~ ' ·:r.- ·;..;:..:-·' ·.~' ·,:;::<..:.~;: ··:•: .. ·'. .... • ...... ,7 ..... ;. ,.:.":• .. 'f· · .-- ~-~<··: ^[1] ·:. .. - :._.~,:. ~;...' ... .,_;' t'fi:H g@3.6fJR~:,;:;:~S;~~,~~"i~~V1:~~~;61;',~~tri2::s:~.: · 2 -, .... fij8};:J[J~t.\¢·i~;'MA~~~:~~::~;:~(i:cl~:J'~It:J, Fq.lif\'·i;~/l1~,Y~i',~~ 1·1y~tt.1\·i-l g:,. fo ;~_:·.: _ . ·

2 2 ~~~~~~-~:~~~-3;;,\RJ'§'¢1R>i~5,\9.P. ~ §;~~:~t{'fC&":;',_\?~:t.f~~u.\:i;.?tii~'~:e:$~.CiJB fi:f;:i,\§:i/~2-.D;; ~\~.?:.1 :,7- ~ 2 i~!w,?~l.~·ifd':t'q~(~5:(:~!;i:~.}::~u !!;t, .. ~ .. ;_(9..: :,cf.f:~l-~ .·~;-,?-~T;}!;.F\iJ;pJ,~\~~~_'1,!; 1:1 ~~ ::.:s q Sl'}f~ .. :~~,t,,~;~l:, '·~ ~·!:,: · .:1 p·~?:~sJc:~:,r:(J,'j':>·f';:·~·:·:. /. 2'5 ..

• . . ~--. - - " - ; - - - . --~--~-~ Todd Anderson, RMR, ~RR . (432)~ 686-0605 ._ :;_ 1.+ *48 . . . ~J:<(;;:,_~_:, :)J) •4

Case 7:L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . ~- ~· •.· 'I :niE COUIH: Mr-. 1-ler:-shbel-ger< wher-e 'cJoes yoLW · 2 c I i ent. want to spend J1 is ·time? -

3 Mr<. +IERSI-IBEI\GER :- · YoLw Honor-, he. r-equests Big 4

5 . THE COUI'H: 1\ I 1- j- i ght. . 1.' not dE;par-·t i ng .ft-olll t~he G r-econHnended sentence. ... •.

:I ' 7 Pui-suant to tl1e Sen~enc i ng f\efonn Act of 1984, ~- .•. Wh i ell 1- have COI-15 i clet-ecl in E.Hl aclv f sor-y capac i ty, c.in~J .l:he .• n I.J ... ··~ g sentenc i i1g · factor·s s,et for-th in ·18, Unl·tecl States Code, · Section 3553(a) .·which I .have consider-ed in an·:iv-ing iJt,: a

'10 n~asonab I e sentence -- and I clo n nci U1e gi_r i cle I i ne r-ar)ge iii ·1 'I ..,· '12 this case to be Yair- and n:;asonab I e -.., J:.he ··fo I I owing • • '13 .. sentence i ::> i ruposecl:: r\}~;~!~~~~~:~=~~e:~§i;,~.@~:s:ii~;;:;,~:.t·0:~;~J 1 ·:-n,_rt 1 .:~':.~~\~i.~/~;,tt.~·~SP:?}:s}.~;,_,:S1/$~;:'·.

'14 {~~-Q.;:;s -~{8L;?·~·~~Lf -'~-[~)1!~,~;~( ~Q'J-~ ~::;Fcr::~~-~r~.e?Q_:,;_·~~J:(,i;-:¢,f;.:)i1lf) 1\i::s·al11iie'nf :-of· , '15' ,.,~ ·-·~·,""""""'-·:o·----·· -;;: ::r.-r·~~: .. ;.·:--!:·" ""'!'" • • • .. .l . • r siB s-::,:moJ;J.tl:fs~:r·, :_;·J H3 ~~~· .. :·· J:V" ··-·· , .• ~ ..... , . ····:··.~

'17 I · w i I I i"'ecornrnerrcl ·that he be p l_aced at the ·men I s '18 fac i I i ty ·at 8 i g Spr-: i ng unt i..J he become.s e I i g i b I.e to ^[4] ". '19. par-t i c.i pa·te i 11" the 50.0-hour- cln1g · tre<::rtrnent. pr~pgr-a.Ul· and_ );:l1cn be ·tr~ansfetTecl t.o a fac i I i ty ,th<::rt has· that pr-ogr-am: :that l1E:; - .- 20 . . gets <.:1 I so c.=xiLic:<:rt ion and j ol) tr-c.l in i ng.

2'1 T Uporl r-elease fr~om the Bureau of Pr-isons, you're

2~~

'") ... .> pI aced or:1 supent i secl n~ I ease for-· a tenn of· five ye<:li-S·. t....:...J . . ,.. ~· Tll8 oener-·a 1. ·ter-rilS of ~sup~r-v i·sed '(e !~ease :=Jr-e ··tlm:::~c ..

., /' set for- the U.-s. Coui~ts for- tl1e Westen~ D i·str- i c~t or=- Toxus. .., i.. ~1 - -- - " (432) 686-0605 Tod cl And c r s 011·, RMI\, cru~ ) : ; ( : : · .. ~:; ~; ~-1· . ·:. !

..;. .'

~-·

*50 )oF 2_

CHAPTER FOUR -CIDMINAL HISTORY AND CRIMINAL LIVELIHOOD

§4A1.2. Definitions and Instructions for Computing Criminal History I

(a) Prior Sentence

(1) Th~ term "prior sentence" means any sentence previously imposed upon adjudication of guilt,

whether by guilty plea, trial, or plea of nolo contendere, for conduct not part of the instant offense.

Diversion from the judicial process without a finding of guilt (~, deferred prosecution) is not counted. A diversionary disposition resulting from a fmding or admission of guilt; or a plea of nolo contendere, in a judicial proceeding is counted as a sentence under §4Al.l(c) even if a conviction is not formally entered, except that diversion from juvenile court is not counted.

(T~~" ;"'?"(.;•::-·:· '·"-;' ,,., c~,, '"" . .,_. ~ ., ~-···-- " " • . <9.~:5'::;::;: 'Diversionci1jlDispositions:.:_section 4A1.2(f) requires counting prior adult diversionary • ,., " ' , "•' .,,·_:--,· .. ·:: .• <:•. " •. · '"'"."'-"" . I dispositions if they involved a judicial determination of guilt or an admission of guilt in open court. This

· reflects a policy that defendants who receive the benefit of a rehabilitative sentence and coiltinue to

commit crimes should not be treated with further leniency.

6XJ-JJElT B Pt7G--t- 2orl

SENTE.NCJ.N G TABLE

(iiD months nf imprioonment) -~··. [f(.;;f~!Bli.i H.i~fu-lj:c::;~.~eg~cy:~( C':r!rt11nil' :Jfis!~ry:r~J~ntg) :1 ft1~~:; ;,;1· ·····j;::ii:t:tc'··,. · · '"Iii'''''·''· \J'''"'Iv' '< -·~"·'· · 7· ·"·\:·:· ·:, .:; ,_:,~ VI Offense f(o''~'~ir't <::'(2 or'3)') (7, 8, 9) (4, 5, 6) (10,11,12) (13 or mon) lr.crcl 0-6 0--6 I 0-G 2 0-6 0--6 0-6 .:; 0-6 0--6 0-6 3-9 :.... \ ~ - -. 4 0-6 7.rtnte- A. 5 C-6 6 0-6 7 !l-6 15-21 18-24 21-27 ZoneD 2-t-::w 11-27 L5-~l IS-24 24-.30 27-33 Zoo.eC 21-27 21-.33 30-37 12-18 13 lfl-24 2<l·30 :'10·37 33-41 15-21 14 21-21 ;:1;1-41 37-46 ?.7.3.~ l R-24 :n .. :v:~ 15 24-30 41-51 30-~7 l6 21·2-7 14-30 27-33 33-41 41-51 4G-57 17 17-33 30-37 24-30 37-46 46-57 51-63

18 30·37 33-41 41-SI 51-63 57-71 27·:'1~ 30-37 33-41 19 37-46 46-57 57-71 fi3-7X 33-41 :J7-46 20 41-51 51-G3 C3-7l! 70-fl7 77-% 37-46 41-51 46-57 21 57-71 70-87 22 41-51 4(,-.57 :'i 1-(,:i (,::1-71\ 84-105 77-~J{j 23 46-57 51..(,3 57-71 70-R7 IH-1115 9.2.115 24 51-63 57-71 63-7!1. 77-% tn-115 Wll-125 25 57-71 6:'1-711 70-87 84-105 100-125 110-137 16 70·87 78-97 92-115 110-137 120-150 lJJ-71~ 27 78·97 t7-10S 100-125 120-150 7(1-~7 130-16~ Zfillf- II} / 28 117-10& 97-121 110-137 J.;0-1(,2 L40-17S n-~7 29 87-108 97-121 108-135 121-151 140-175 ~~ l.lll~ 97-121 108-t35 30 121-!:51 13.5-IGR 151-1 Rl\ I M!-~HI 31 121-t:'il I :15-L(,If 168·210 188-235 IUII-13.~ 151·1~S 32 12 L-l.'il 135-1611 l:'i 1-1~1{ 2W-262 16~·210 H\~·23;\ 33 m-l!iR 1:5 1-ll\ll I GM-1.111 235-293 11\S·2,~5 210·26~ rJ ~ 1,~11l.&, ·,') oc·,l.68c210>:> 188-235 210-262 135-293 rr34-::.>. 1(,2-::i:n h3S ~~ ·16S•;nu . 188·23:5" 210-262 235-293 262-327 292-:1(•5 .JG 210·262- 235-293 262-327 292-36.5 11<~-2-~5

324-4ll.~ ] 10-262 37 235-293 2G2C:J.27 292-3(i:'i .i;)A->tO:'i ::>60-life 38 235-293 162-327 . 292-365 324-40:'i 360-lik ::;r,o.hf~ 292-365 324-405 3(,11-lif;:: ~62-327 :~W-Irf-. ::>60-li~ 40 41 42 21J2-3rl:i :U4-40:'i ::;60-lifo 360-Hic 360-1ile 360-life 324-40:'5 ~MI-l if.;: ;:;6o-lifr 36U-life 360-lile lfiO-Iifc 36(l...lifc ::1(,{1-lif.;: :"60-lifu 360-life 360-1ifu 3GO-Iifc 4J life lift: life lire 1i~ ]if~ ; ! '

' ' i ..

: ' I colt

. ,-- - - -

; ~.

2iJ "- -- - I *53 G E!<HJ!J;r c '.'

P~tc-e ; or

CHAPTER FOUR -CruMINAL HISTORY AND CRIMINAL LIVELIHOOD

§4A1.2. Definitions and Instructions for Computing Criminal History ,.

(a) Prior Sentence

( 1) Th~ term "prior sentence" means any sentence previously imposed upon adjudication of guilt,

whether by guilty plea, trial, or plea of nolo contendere, for conduct not part of the instant offense.

Qiversion from the judicial process without a finding of guilt ~' deferred prosecution) is not counted. A diversionary disposition resulting from a fmding _or admission of guilt; or a plea Of nolo contendere, in a jt}dicial proceeding is counted as a sentence under §4Al.l (c) even if a conviction is not formally entered, except that diversion from juvenile court is not counted.

;_:jl)~',:·~.:~~~:::vi~~';:-;{;;;;~r;nTsp;-:;i[i~7t~:-section 4AI.2(/) requires counting prior adult diversionary

dispositions if they involved a judicial determination of guilt or all admission of guilt in open court. This reflects a policy that defendant~ wh.o receive the benefit of a rehabilitative sentence and continue to i ' - commit crimes should not be treated with further leniency. *54 E-XHJfJ;; C

'1. t

PtrC+ 2o;~