Wednesday, June 19, 2013


This would be the icing on the cake in terms of punishing the corrupt forces in the Livingston case.

To remind my readers, after pleading guilty to killing a woman former Judge Abel Limas released Livingston to report to prison on his own after 60 days to get his affairs in order.

The $500,000 cash bond was paid to the children as settlement for the murder.  Testimony showed Abel Limas was involved in the process.

Armando Villalobos was in part convicted as a result of Amit Livingston being released in exchange for the $500,000 cash bond.

"An appeals court has overturned a guilty plea and six-year-prison sentence for a man accused of participating in a bribery scheme to win government contracts in El Paso County.
The federal panel determined Tuesday that a judge interfered with plea negotiations involving El Paso businessman Adrian Pena. The contractor pleaded guilty in December 2010 to fraud.
The appeals court says U.S. District Judge Frank Montalvo's condition that a separate civil case involving Pena be resolved before he accepted the plea induced Pena to cooperate with the government in the investigation and plead guilty, rather than continue bargaining. Pena was sentenced in May 2011 and has been in prison since. He is expected to have a bond hearing in the near future.
The ruling orders the guilty plea and six-year prison sentence vacated and requires further proceedings be handled by a different judge."
If Amit Livingston's conviction is void, then Villalobos may be able to have the charge related to Amit Livingston voided.


Anonymous said...

I'm sorry but your application of the opinion to the Villalobos case makes zero sense. They are not even remotely similar situations.

BobbyWC said...

The trial testimony shows Limas was intrically involved in the plea discussions which included the civil case.

From the Article

"The appeals court says U.S. District Judge Frank Montalvo's condition that a separate civil case involving Pena be resolved before he accepted the plea induced Pena to cooperate with the government in the investigation and plead guilty"

How is this not even remotely similar?

Now you can say they are not identical - one is federal and one is state - and that could be the difference in the law

this was a statutory ruling not a constitutional ruling.

At a substantive level the cases are the same - the judge was part of the plea discussions - that is what the court found to be wrong - see page 15.

Now the rule in state court may be different

bobby WC

Anonymous said...

More importantly, Livingston would have to appeal his conviction. That is hard to do when you are long gone. Of course, he may just show up to appeal, right...

BobbyWC said...

yes, I would suspect he would have to appear to appeal - this is the problem - but it could still raise an important appellable issue for Villalobos

If the court agrees a conviction of Livingston is needed for Villalobos' conviction to be upheld on this issue, then there is an interesting question of law on the table.

I have no desire to research it

I only raise the question because it is interesting

I have no idea which way it would go

But I tend to agree with the implication of your post - Livingston would have to appear to file his appeal

bobby WC

Anonymous said...

Without giving this much thought it seems that one bad act negates another bad act. Is that the gist of it? So if I am illegally stopped by an officer and I then attack the officer I get to walk away because my bad act ensued from his bad act? Just asking. I'm having a hard tie grasping this one.

BobbyWC said...

your summary is accurate - but I am not saying this opinion can influence anything - I am just raising the discussion.

But this is the law - bad people walk when judges and prosecutors violate the rules

Our legal system is based on the process hence due process, and not the result.

Again I am not saying anything will come from this opinion - for me, knowing how appeals work and legal agruments are formed - it is interesting - that's all

Bobby WC

BobbyWC said...

On the last comment - thanks for the comment - it is the kind of comment I love most because it educates my readers while making them think - this is when the Bv works best

Remember sometimes I just raise questions to get people thinking

Bobby WC

Anonymous said...

Honorable Judge Frank Montalvo....Judicial Miscondict AGAIN!

On Feb. 12, 2014 the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:11-CR-2126-1
Ruled defendant PETER VICTOR AYIKA:

"For the foregoing reasons, we VACATE Ayika’s guilty plea and REMAND for further proceedings before a different district judge. Because we take this action, we do not reach Ayika’s other arguments challenging his conviction and sentence."