March 2, 2012
"Man Gets 2 Years For Semen Sample At Sunflower Market"
The title of this post is the headline of this local report of a federal sentencing in New Mexico. Here are some of the distasteful details:
A man has been sentenced to federal prison for tricking a woman into tasting his semen at the Sunflower Market.
Police arrested former Sunflower Market employee Anthony Garcia for putting his own semen onto a spoon and tricking a woman into tasting it. Garcia told the judge Thursday that he didn't know the consequences were going to be high, and he apologized to the victim and Sunflower Market.
However, in a rare move, the judge sentenced Garcia to 24 months in federal prison, which is more than the 12 to 18 months expected. "It doesn't happen a lot. A judge really has to be particularly concerned with the kind of offense conduct to go up," said U.S. District Attorney Ken Gonzales.
Prosecutors said Garcia tricked four women into sampling the semen and watching their reactions, and DNA tests proved Garcia was responsible. They said that Garcia's criminal history also factored into the stiffer penalty.
"There is one incident in a local Walmart where he flashed his private parts, where he flashed a young lady who was in the store," Gonzales said. Gonzales said Garcia also flashed a jogger on the Bosque.
Before she handed down the sentence, the judge told Garcia that what he did was despicable, heinous and horrendous. At one point, the judge told Garcia she's practically speechless in trying to articulate just how offensive it is....
Garcia has been ordered to serve his sentence at the Bureau of Prisons in Stafford, Ariz. He's also ordered to take psychosexual evaluations and undergo sex offender treatment Garcia has a case pending in district court of criminal sexual contact of a minor, kidnapping, and bribery, which is set for trial in April.
There are a lot of interesting legal elements to this case, including the remarkable fact that the guidelines recommended such a low prison sentence for this "despicable, heinous and horrendous" behavior and yet often recommends a sentence many, many years longer for downloading child porn. Perhaps this case represents one of those rare examples in which the applicable guidelines actually recommend a sentence that is insufficient to achieve the 3553(a)(2) punishment purposes.
Especially because it is late on a Friday afternoon after a long week, I hope folks do not find this sentencing story to leave them with a bad taste going into the weekend. (Sorry, lame and tasteless jokes here are just too easy.)
UPDATE: This news report about the sentencing (which looks like a reprint of a Justice Department press release) explains the federal charges to which this defendant pleaded guilty:
Thursday afternoon, a U.S. District Judge in Albuquerque sentenced Anthony Garcia, 32, of Albuquerque, to a 24-month term of imprisonment for his conviction for adulterating food with semen and making false statements to federal investigators during a criminal investigation. Garcia will be on supervised release for three years after completing his prison sentence. Garcia also was ordered to pay restitution to the victim of his criminal conduct. Garcia was arrested on July 13, 2011, based on a two-count indictment charging him with (1) adulterating food with semen; and (2) making false statements during the course of a federal investigation. Garcia has been in federal custody since his arrest.
March 2, 2012 at 05:50 PM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "Man Gets 2 Years For Semen Sample At Sunflower Market":
the good news is that if convicted of "criminal sexual contact with a minor" and kidnapping this icky perv is likely to receive a crime which more reflects his extraordinary high level of ickiness.
and note, while I normally reserve the icky perv phrase for pedophiles only, this perv's actions are sufficiently icky to deserve the phrase icky perv even for targeting adults.
Posted by: virginia | Mar 2, 2012 6:08:34 PM
And even more ironic is that even if he had tricked a kid into doing this, his guidelines would still be lower than if he had looked at a picture of someone doing this to a kid.
Posted by: roo | Mar 2, 2012 6:43:18 PM
Let's hope two years in the pokey can help him mend his ways. Part of me thinks that him getting the ever-living crap beaten out of him by a boyfriend or husband would be better for him.
Posted by: federalist | Mar 2, 2012 6:47:51 PM
What harm did the victims suffer? How does one convince people to sample something that does not look any food or drink I know of? How did these victims know it was semen? Why is this a federal crime and not a state crime? Shouldn't any female judge be disqualified by an aggressive defense lawyer?
There is a high likelihood he has committed hundreds if not thousands of sex crimes if he is average. Who had him on the street after age 14? Who kept him alive after age 14? The parties responsible for this freak's being on the loose should be sued, lose their job, and be beaten up by the families of the hundreds of victims. Once convicted, he should be waterboarded full time to solve a lot of other crimes. Make his time in prison very productive. Forget the psychosexual education which will teach him to be far slicker in his courtship skills.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Mar 2, 2012 8:36:02 PM
Since there is no federal statute proscribing chicanery-induced semen ingestion, it would be helpful to know what the charge was. Did I miss it in the article? This may be a case of the U.S. Attorney having to shoehorn this kind of bizarre conduct into an existing statute leading to a guideline woefully inadequate to address the conduct.
Posted by: USPO | Mar 2, 2012 8:52:49 PM
What is so icky about this man's conduct? Not that I check often but the last time I checked swallowing semen is the ordinary course of business in porn and from what I overhear around the water cooler "going down" is quite the thing these days. I wonder how many of the woman in this case have never tasted a man's semen.
I'm not trying to justify what he did. Certainly there is a significant difference between what a person does voluntary and what they are tricked into doing. But I'm speechless as to how a judge could find such behavior so "heinous" as to make her speechless. I think this man's deceits are wrong. But then I also think that your average politician's deceits are also wrong and they get elected to office!
BTW, what a horrible piece of news reporting. The article refers to the "the judge" five different times and yet fails to identify her. I wonder if she is an oldster.
Posted by: Justmeagain | Mar 2, 2012 10:25:37 PM
Say, someone from California falsely claims to be a millionaire, film producer, and wants to "test" a lady in Indiana for a lucrative role. She swallows to impress. Is that a federal offense? I need a specific Federal Code citation.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Mar 2, 2012 10:56:24 PM
I'm guessing the upward departure would probably have something to do with his other pending cases, but even still 2 years seems...surprisingly within the realm of sanity considering it's in federal court and has to do with sex. Just thank goodness, as roo pointed out, he wasn't looking at pictures of it.
Posted by: Guy | Mar 2, 2012 11:06:25 PM
"Prosecutors said Garcia tricked four women into sampling the semen and watching their reactions, and DNA tests proved Garcia was responsible. They said that Garcia's criminal history also factored into the stiffer penalty."
That partially explains it. There is an "icky" factor here but also it is a special personal violation for a woman (it might be worse for some men if homophobic jokes in many films are anything to judge) and is a particularly sexist thing to do. We respect the privacy rights of others, including not being tricked into doing something that is usually left to sexual acts.
Two years does seem like a lot.
Posted by: Joe | Mar 3, 2012 9:01:14 AM
Perhaps we should let the man drop a tablespoonful into your morning cereal everyday for two weeks. Hey, it is in homosexual porn, so it cannot be too bad, right?
Your post is actually misogynistic. It reminds me of the old "She is a slut, so the rape should be no big deal" line.
My guess is that if federalist, Bill Otis, or I had said any similar thing, there would be 100 posts here condemning us.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Mar 3, 2012 11:37:25 AM
SC makes an interesting point.
Posted by: Stanley Feldman | Mar 3, 2012 1:57:01 PM
Of course he does stanley. He's right under the law. But it was played as a SEX CRIME! Therefore anything is allowed to get him!
Posted by: rodsmith | Mar 3, 2012 2:52:43 PM
Not really, as it is a completely different situation.
In the first instance, the women were not given the opportunity to make a choice. Regardless of the false pretenses, the woman in SC's scenario DID make a choice.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Mar 3, 2012 5:08:08 PM
The situation that SC described is actually a hypothetical for the most rarest of all forms of rape - cases where consent to sexual activity was obtained by fraud. Your answer SC is that its doubtful the feds prosecute - rape is generally prosecuted by states.
The update makes the case seem much more understandable.
TarlsQtr, your response to justmeagain was only lacking the suggestion that he should keep it in his pants until he learns what the concept of consent means.
Posted by: virginia | Mar 3, 2012 5:59:58 PM
And yet for all the vitriol in this thread it remains a fact that the legislature saw fit to only make this crime have a statutory max of two years. It seems that rather than ranting at me or at the perp the judge's and the haters on this forum might better direct their unrighteous indignation at the legislature.
Or maybe they could reflect on the true meaning of the word "heinous." Two years is not the normal maximum sentence for a crime the legislature considers heinous and I don't see any legislatures toe-kissing criminals.
Face it, it isn't a heinous crime. It barely rates disgusting. But hate and flame away you old geezers.
Posted by: justmeagain | Mar 4, 2012 12:56:03 AM
Just opening up the Guidelines manual, it would look like since there was presumably no risk of death or serious bodily injury you're probably going to start with 2N2.1, which has a pretty penny-ante base offense level of 6. But the application note that "extreme psychological injury" may be a basis for upward departure might be in play here. I mean, I hope this fact pattern is sufficiently unusual that there's never going to be a movement to enact a specific guideline that would, e.g., add 4 offense levels if the substance with which the food was adulterated was . . .
Posted by: JWB | Mar 6, 2012 6:35:21 PM
I am a student and I read this on my state's newspaper that I feel is relevant to this article. Here a singer in Hawaii has been convicted once before and then molested two girls and he gets one year in prison and after that all he has is 6 years of probation on the other hand someone who looks at pictures can recieve up to a decade. I think the difference between state and federal sentencing is rediculous and that something is really really wrong, Here is the link to the article I am refering to: http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/Musician_Cecilio_Rodriguez.html?id=142097883
Posted by: Hodson | Mar 10, 2012 4:23:34 AM