United States Vs. Carlos Alfonso MorenoUnited States Vs. Carlos Alfonso MorenoUnited States vs. Carlos Alfonso MorenoOn July 12, 2004, Carlos Alfonso Moreno appeared before the United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit. He brought before the court an appeal challenging the district courts calculation of his sentencing under the United States Sentencing Guideline. The panel determined after reviewing his case that an oral argument would not be necessary. They were able to look at the details of his case and make their decision.
Mr. Moreno was charged in district court with various drug offenses and with being a felon in possession of a firearm. He entered a guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute more than fifty grams of a substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine and possession of a firearm by a prohibited person
In the pre-sentence report recommending Mr. Morenos sentence, the Probation Officer added a point to his criminal history score as a result of September 2001 convictions for driving with a suspended license and for unsafe turning or stopping. For this earlier offense, Mr. Moreno was sentenced to six months in jail, with all but five days suspended, and six months of probation. The Probation Officer justified the addition of this point by citing the sentencing guidelines, which direct that sentences for less than sixty days should be given one point. The Probation Officer then determined that Mr. Morenos criminal history points totaled ten, placing him at the bottom of criminal history category. The district court agreed with this result and calculated Mr. Morenos total adjusted offense level to be twenty-five. The court subsequently sentenced Mr. Moreno to 100 months in prison, which
PERSONAL ADVICE This fine for Mr. Morenos is the same fine the district court considered when he was convicted of criminally violating the probation conditions of probation. According to a district court judge, although Mr. Morenos was given probation in October 2001, he was “under the influence, at least temporarily” because of mental illness. He was told that by April 22, 2002, after he had pleaded no contest to a first-degree felony charge, he would not be required to pay the fine if he re-offended. Since the probation was extended to October 2001, Mr. Morenos had served three and a half years in prison, which he was given. In response to the new sentence, Mr. Morenos asked that the judge sentence him to 180 days in prison, two years of supervised release, and three years of supervised probation, which are given to those who show a “high likelihood” of being punished. This is a great deal of money for a man charged with this crime, because the sentence for a violation of the probation rules was far more stringent than a sentence for someone charged with other offenses. Mr. Morenos said that he expected to pay an additional $5,000 per violation in a month, so he intends to do the same before probation expires. He also told an administrative law judge that “he hoped to have no more violations of probation” than he received. Although the judge awarded money as well as food and a meal, he ruled in favor of his client by awarding him three years of supervision and 100 hours of paid parental leave. He added, “That’s a fine not only for his age, but for his status as a person with the hope that any future violations of probation will have a permanent effect on his self- esteem. The court seems aware of this, and this is also true of most of the other felonies that Mr. Morenos’s criminal record shows up in his administrative law judgment at the time of his sentencing. In addition, Mr. Morenos has been prohibited from receiving personal credit card payments, which will result in him having to go to court when a credit card charge would be added. That limitation was also removed during the course of this case because it made it impossible for people with pre-trial disabilities to get money and other benefits for receiving court-mandated personal credit cards. Mr. Morenos has told his staff that he plans to seek a financial counselor at the school he has attended regularly.
Mr. Moreno was able to show in the prior hearing that he was not guilty. However, the district court was able to uphold his bail, because a former parole officer saw him to the same level as the district attorney and informed him of the case. The court ruled that a probation violation would be “reasonable in a defendant’s position” under the Sixth Amendment. The court also concluded that the fact that Mr. Morenos was never convicted of a probation violation could be construed as a violation of probation. Mr. Morenos was sentenced to 60 days on probation and 90 on probation, although his time spent in jail was limited to nine months. He is now expected to attend Judge O’Malley’s sentencing of Mr. Morenos again.
CONCLUSION The district court judge found that the district court was lenient toward the defendant for his alleged criminal conduct. A case is reviewed in a criminal jurisdiction where an amount of incarceration can be used to avoid punishment for the entire period of