S 6 ie Gio ae Gi i 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 22 23 25 26 ae 28 Electronically Filed 06/24/2015 08:25:53 AM MEMO Hien pbb STEVEN B. WOLFSON CLERK OF THE COURT Clark County District Attorney Nevada Bar #001565 JAY P.RAMAN Chief Deputy District Atorney Nevada Bar #0010193 200 Lewis Avenue Las Vegas, Nevada 89155-2212 (702) 671-2500 Attorney for Plaintiff DISTRICT COURT CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Plaintiff, CASENO: C-14-299537-1 ovs- DEPT NO: XXII PRISCILLA ROCHA, #1374052, Defendants. SENTENCING MEMORANDUM DATE OF HEARING: June 30, 2015 TIME OF HEARING: 9:00 A.M. COMES NOW, the State of Nevada, by STEVEN B. WOLFSON, through JAY P. RAMAN, Chief Deputy District Attorney, and hereby submits the attached istrict Attorney, Points and Authorities in support of State’s Sentencing Memorandum, This Motion is made and based upon all the papers and pleadings on file herein, the attached points and authorities in support hereof, and oral argument at the time of hearing, if deemed necessary by this Honorable Court. Mt mM MW (Ase \Publie\ Document 3BGI113-MEMO-Rechs _Priscila}00L. docxPOINTS AND AUTHORITIES KEY FACTS Defendant Priscilla Rocha’s charged and admitted conduct constituting criminal acts spans the timeframe of October 7, 2005 to March 31, 2014. After many months of investigation by the Clark County School District, Clark County School District Police, and Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, a case was presented to the Clark County District Attomey’s Office alleging criminal wrongdoing on the part of numerous people who were employed and not employed by the School District. All of the conduct had one central orchestrator ~ Priscilla Rocha, program director for the Adult English Language Acquisition Services (AELAS). The evidence was presented to the Clark County Grand Jury on May 29, 2014, June 5, 2014, July 10, 2014, and July 17, 2014. Through four (4) days of testimony involving eighteen (18) witnesses and over 100 exhibits, a true bill was returned for Priscilla Rocha, Jaime Espitia, Donnie Placencia, Andres Mendoza, and Jerome Rocha. Of the 52 felony charges, Priscilla Rocha was charged with 50 felonies either singularly, or jointly with her co-defendants. No other defendant’s inal liability exceeded ten (10) felony charges. Priscilla Rocha orchestrated many crimes during her tenure as director of the AELAS program, and these crimes can be generally organized into eight (8) categories. Computers and Equipment to Mexico Priscilla Rocha used CCSD money to purchase over $13,000.00 in computers and other technology items, drove those items across the United States border and gave them to a foreign school. P Rocha ade multiple trips to Ensenada, Mexico during the time she worked as the Director for AELAS. Accounts of these trips were verified by employees who went on their personal time with Rocha to Mexico, as well as border crossing logs provided by U.S Immigrations and Customs. The trips occurred in 2011 According to purchase orders, invoices, and witness statements, Priscilla Rocha drove to Mexico with twenty (20) Dell Computers (Full systems) paid for with school district money ata total price of $13,600.00. Additionally, Priscilla Rocha transported one (1) Apple iPad 64 GB, three (3) Apple iPads 32 GB, one (1) Hitachi projector, one (1) LCD TV 40” 1080P, five(5) Coby CD players, and five (5) Asus laptops all paid for with CCSD funds, above and beyond the $13,600.00. For providing such a bounty to the people of Ensenada, Mexico, Priscilla Rocha was lauded on social media and thrown a lavish party there. The actions of Pt $13,600.00 in this scheme. Ghost Employee Jaime Espitia Jaime Espitia, a handyman / electrician worked for Priscilla Rocha on various ‘lla Rocl cost the Clark County School District more than improvement projects within the AELAS trailer offices. Jaime Espitia also taught dance lessons for a program titled “Ballet Folklorico”, which was brought into the AELAS program and was a remnant of another program not affiliated with the CCSD'. Jaime Espitia’s partner is Fernando Larios-Duarte, a CCSD AELAS employee. From the subpoenaed bank records, Jaime Espitia appeared to have been paid for his work by Priscilla Rocha separate and apart from any fraudulent work invoicing. The method of payment for his work was checks written from student fund fee accounts, directly to Jaime Espi On August 5, 2013 Jaime Espita opened a joint bank account at Wells Fargo with Cesar Diaz. Shortly thereafter, a requisition form was submitted within the AELAS program to justify the hiring and payment of Cesar Diaz for tutor services. Cesar Diaz’s name, date of birth, and social security number was used for the purpose of establish ng the ghost employee. For Cesar Diaz’s part in this scheme, he received several hundred dollars from Jaime Espitia and a cell phone. Jaime Espitia was the sole beneficiary of every dollar direct-deposited into the account, Between the dates of September 10, 2013 and March 31, 2014 time sheets were submitted and signed for by Priscilla Rocha that “C. Diaz” worked a total of 736 hours. These fraudulent invoices caused $13,248.00 of Clark County School District Money to transfer to the Wells Fargo bank account where Jaime Espitia accessed it. Cesar Diaz never worked for AELAS or the CCSD, instead he worked for Cardenas supermarket, and occasionally would "The Ballet Folklorico was previously part of a non-profit not affiiated with the CCSD that Priseilla Rocha was heavily involved in and ceased to exist named HABLEhelp Jaime Espitia at the Ballet Folklorico. The combined actions of Priscilla Rocha and Jaime Espitia cost the Clark County School District $13,248.00 in this scheme, Ghost Employee Jerome Rocha Jerome Rocl is one of Priscilla Rocha’ dult sons (age 45). Jerome Rocha is not a teacher or tutor, and does not reside in Clark County. Jerome Rocha owns a motorcycle repair shop in Albuquerque, New Mexico, where he resid In a similar but far more expansive way, Priscilla Rocha provided unearned Clark County School District money to her son for a prolonged period of time. The scheme took place much like the Jaimie Espitia scheme - a joint bank account was set up between Jerome Rocha and his friend, Donnie Placencia — who is also an Albuquerque, New Mexico resident, Priscilla Rocha represented through requisition forms that Donnie Placencia would be working as a tutor for the AELAS program. Donnie Placencia’s name, date of birth, and social security number was used for the purpose of establishing the ghost employee. Through direct deposit, the Clark County School District would send payment for tutor services to “Donnie Placencia” for hours worked in the school district “helping parents of Spanish speaking students.” Initial inspection showed that “Donnie Placencia” was receiving regular paychecks from the CCSD ranging from $1,000.00 to $2,100.00 per month, Priscilla Rocha signed off on the requisition forms, and timesheets that “Donnie Placencia” had performed services to participants in the AELAS program, and worked the represented hours, The true extent of fraudulently CCSD money paid to Jerome Rocha originated from fraudulent paperwork being submitted for this purpose as far back as October 2005 and used $132,870.00 in CCSD consistently until police raided AELAS. In total, Priscilla Roc! money to transfer to her son, Jerome Rocha for work he never performed and was rarely even in the State of Nevada. The conduit for the money, Donnie approximately $4,000.00 of the illegally obtained $132,870.00, or 3% of the money. ‘The combined actions of Priscilla Rocha, Jerome Rocha, and Donnie Placencia cost theClark County School District $132,870.00 in this scheme. School District Property to Andres Mendoza Andres Mendoza is not a CCSD employee, he is a community activist who has worked with Priscilla Rocha within the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC). Priscilla Rocha used her position to provide CCSD computers, an Apple iPad 64GB and four security cameras, all paid for with CCSD money. Priscilla Rocha directed Manuel Ramirez, a CCSD employee who worked as her information technology representative to purchase and install equipment during CCSD work hours at the personal home and business of Andres Mendoza. The computers were installed by Mr. Ramirez in Mr, Mendoza’s home and had the “Property of CCSD” sticker still affixed when recovered from his home, At a business providing DMV services, an additional computer was recovered bearing the “Property of CCSD” sticker. According to accounts of why the equipment was provided, it was response to complaints that Andres Mendoza made to Priscilla Rocha about having been targeted by people, and said antagonizers throwing animals or animal blood on his residence. Priscilla Rocha ordered Manuel Ramirez to purchase four (4) Foscam surveillance cameras, which were affixed by Mr. Ramirez to the exterior of Mr. Mendoza’s home and then setup the computer to receive the feed from the cameras. In total, the equipment cost $2,099.55 not including the efforts worked by Mr. Ramirez on CCSD time to install the cameras. The combined actions of Priscilla Rocha and Andres Mendoza cost the Clark County School District $2,099.55 in this scheme. AELAS Employee Working at Yamilex Beauty Salon Ana Soto was a full time employee for the AELAS program at the CCSD, On her days off, she would work as a hairstylist at Yamilex Beauty Salon, located in the Bonanza Indoor Swap meet. Coincidently, the owner of the Yamilex Beauty Salon sold the salon to Priscilla Rocha. After the sale of Yamilex, Priscilla Rocha was Ana Soto’s boss at both AELAS, and Yamilex. On a frequent basis, Priscilla Rocha would urge Ana Soto to work at Yamilex when Yamilex was short staffed. This included days when Ana Soto was scheduled to be workingat ALEAS, Ana Soto claims to have followed procedures and submitted leave slips / sick slips for time periods when she was asked to work at Yamilex and should have been at AELAS. Ana Soto was able to produce at least one such sick leave request form, the carbon copy of one turned in to Priscilla Rocha. It was observed in an undercover operation that Ana Soto ‘was in fact working at Yamilex on CCSD time. Through piecing together limited sign-in sheets from Yamilex, and employee records from CCSD, police were able to calculate conservatively that Ana Soto was paid $2,483.01 by the CCSD for hours that she was working at Yamilex Priscilla Rocha’s side business. Circumstantial evidence suggests that when Priscilla Rocha received sick or leave slips from Ana Soto to work at Yamilex, that those slips were ‘pocketed’ by Pris Rocha for the la Rocha. This figure does not include the money made by Pi percentage of revenue Ana Soto made while working at Yamilex, or the cost benefit that Priscilla Rocha achieved by not having to close Yamilex due to staffing issues, or replace Ana Soto with another hairstylist. The actions of Priscilla Rocha cost the Clark County School District at least $2,483.01 in this scheme. Receiving Dictionary Fee Money In the first few years of heading AELAS, Pri illa Rocha instituted program fees for the students of AELAS for ID Cards, Lab, and Dictionaries. This fee structure continued until the program was raided by the police. The Dictionaries were purchased for the program originally though grant funds through HABLE (pre-2005) and much more recently during the charged conduct timeframe through CCSD purchase orders. Unique to the Dictionary fees, the cash (cash was the only form of payment usually honored) was collected at the two ABLAS program offices, and given directly to Priscilla Rocha. The other fees charged for ID Cards and Lab fees were normally deposited in the enterprise account, and an off-the-books account maintained by Priscilla Rocha and Rene Romero, In attempting to deter exactly how much provable cash Priscilla Rocha personally received through dictionary fees, ledger books were recovered from ALEAS offices and analyzed to determine how much money in Dictionary Fees was collected. From the limitedledger books that could be found, it was determined that $34,590.00 in cash was received from Dictionary Fees between the timeframe of July 20, 2010 and March 14, 2014. Numerous witnesses at the Grand Jury proceedings testified that all Dictionary fee money was received in cash, and delivered to Priscilla Rocha. Inspection of the AELAS ‘ount did not show the Dictio program enterprise account and the off-the-books fee a -y fee money being deposited. Further, Rene Romero, Priscilla Rocha’s assistant said that only the other fee money (ID Cards and Lab Fees) was deposited into those two bank accounts. Analysis of Priscilla Rocha’s personal bank accounts do not show her transferring any money back into the AELAS program. The actions of P1 Rocha cost the Clark County School ict at least $34,590.00 in this scheme. Shell Company Transfers to “Olverita’s Village” Priscilla Rocha used fraud and forged receipts to generate CCSD payouts to “Olverita’s Village,” a shell company devised to hide theft of CCSD funds. When Pi la Rocha added ancillary programs moved over from the demise of HABLE such as Ballet Folklorico and the Gang Alternative Program, there were occasions where the purchase of costumes and traditional Mexican artifacts and books were needed. The true Olverita’s Village is an actual business in Los Angeles that sells Mexican folk art, books and costumes, Priscilla Rocha has no business or personal interests in the real Olverita’s Village located in California. On December 12, 2008 Priscil 1a Rocha filed with the Nevada Secretary of State articles of organization and an initial list of managers for “Olveritta’s Tradition and Folklore, LLC”. Priscilla Rocha was listed as the sole manager of the “business”?, Through financial investigation of the AELAS Enterprise bank account (official bank account funded with student generated fees), the following checks were written to “Olverita’s Village” and deposited into the shell corporation that Priscilla Rocha had formed, not the actual Olverita Ss 2 According (o the Secretary of State, the business license was revoked on or afler December 31, 2012 for failure to file new lists of pay fees.Village in Los Angeles, checks #1154, 1161, 1165, 1169, 1173, 1175, 1178, 1195, 1199, 1201, 1205, 1210, 1211, 1214, 1220, 1222, 1223, 1225, 1232, and 1235. Rene Romero testified that Priscilla Rocha would bring her an ‘invoice’ for items supposedly purchased for the umbrella of AELAS programs, and ask for payment on those invoices. Rene Romero would prepare the abovementioned checks made payable to Olverita’s Village, many of which included the Los Angeles address. The checks were handed to Priscilla Rocha per her instructions, supposedly to mail them to the real Olverita’s. The abovementioned checks totaled $80,618.00, and Priscilla Rocha actually deposited them into her shell company. Analysis of the bank account associated with Rocha’s shell company shows that the CCSD $80,618.00 went from Rocha’s shell company, to Rocha’s personal bank account, The usage of funds that in large part came from the Olverita’s money showed expenditures for her personal mortgage payments, car payments, credit cards, phones, cash withdrawals, department store, grocery store, and hotel purchases. When Priscilla Rocha was interviewed by police regarding the Olveritta’s Tradition and Folklore, LLC she created, her explanation was that she created it to pay Olveritta’s in California for products purchased for her programs. She claimed that she could not make purchases directly from the real Olverita’s through normal CCSD procedures. Rocha’s explanation was not consistent with the fact that there was a history of actual purchases from the Olverita’s using approved CCSD payment methods. Rocha claimed she never took money from the Olverita’s bank account for personal use ~ a statement clearly shown to be false through following the money. Later in the interview, Rocha admitted she personally benefited from the movement of money to the Olverita’s business account she had created. The actions of Priscilla Rocha cost the Clark County School District at least $80,618.00 in this scheme, Payments from Enterprise Account for Other Unauthorized Purposes Pri Rocha paid for things ranging from a beauty salon, to LULAC expenses, to sending money directly to herself from student generated fees from the ID card fee and Lab fee. The Enterprise account was the official account of AELAS, and received money generatedby the Lab fees. The off-the-books Wells Fargo Account received the money deposits from the ID card fees, The ID card fees should have been deposited into the official AELAS Enterprise account so the CCSD could have oversight over the funds. Nevertheless, funds in both accounts were used by Priscilla Rocha for her own personal gain. From the Enterprise account, Priscilla Rocha had her assistant Rene Romero write two checks #1217 for $3,011.80 and check #1240 for $708.00 made payable to the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) not for official or authorized uses, but for her own. personal gain or reasons From the off-the-books Wells Fargo account, Priscilla Rocha had Rene Romero author check #1091 from this account for $5,000.00 to Alfonso Acosta. Alfonso: Acosta was the owner previous to Priscilla Rocha for Yamilex beauty salon. The $5,000.00 represented half-payment of the total price for the Yamilex beauty salon business, according to the purchase agreement. Priscilla Rocha also had checks written to herself and other interests, check #1098 from. this account for $2,500.00 to Priscilla Rocha, check #1093 for $964 made payable to Lois Toney for “LULAC Shirts”, check #1096 for $960.00 made payable to Priscilla Rocha for “Lulac Delegates” and check #1095 for $1,140.00 made payable to Lulac for “presentations”, not for official or authorized uses. The actions of Priscilla Rocha cost the Clark County School District at least $14, this scheme. ARGUMEN I. PRISCILLA ROCHA STOLE A VAST AMOUNT OF MONEY FROM THE CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT BY COMMITTING A VAST AMOUNT OF CRIME Defendant Priscilla Rocha was charged with and has pled guilty to stealing a vast amount of money from the Clark County School District, a tax dollar funded district of schools whose primary purpose is to educate the children of Clark County. While teaching is normallyseen as a selfless profession, Defendant Rocha spent considerable time and effort devising ways to directly and indirectly take money away from the school district to benefit herself and her friends. The fina cial damage is extensive, and comes down to this: Computers and other equipment to Mexico ~ at least $13,600.00. Ghost employee Jamie Espitia - $13,248.00 Ghost employee Jerome Rocha - $132,870.00 Property to Andres Mendoza - $2,099.55 Ana Soto working at Yamilex Beauty Salon — at least $2,483.01 Dictionary fee money ~ at least $34,590.00 Olverita’s Village false payments - $80,618.00 Payments for other unauthorized purposes - $14,283.80 © Grand Total $293,792.36 As has been noted and will become clear at the restitution hearing, the amounts charged were done in an extremely conservative fashion. While $293,792.36 is a very large amount of money to steal by a person who is already being paid very well as an administrator for the Clark County School District, the true amount may be significantly higher and may never be fully known because of the difficulty involved in unraveling Defendant Rocha’s crimes. Here are some examples of how the true damage to the CCSD may be higher: 1, Computers and other equipment to Mexico — the equipment above and beyond the 20 Dell computers include one (1) Apple iPad 64 GB, three (3) Apple iPads 32 GB, one (1) Hitachi projector, one (1) LCD TV 40” 1080P, five (5) Coby CD players, and five (5) Asus laptops all paid for with CCSD fund: he findings of how much approximately these additional items would cost will be presented, but it is likely another $3,000.00 to $5,000.00 in electronics that Defendant Rocha stole and brought to Mexico. 2. Ana Soto wor at Yamilex Beauty Salon — The police were only able to find a limited amount of log books for the Yamilex beauty salon, Without complete records, it was impossible to determine the actual amount of school district hours paid for and wasted while Ana Soto worked at Priscilla Rocha’s beauty salon. The $2,483.01 is only what could be substantiated based upon found records.3. Dictionary fee money — The vast amount of cash that was directly handed to Priscilla Rocha from both campuses was conservatively measured at $34,590.00. Again, this involved a situation where only one of the two campuses was keeping facially accurate logbooks of dictionary fee transactions. The CCSD as provided figures that over 20,000 students used the AELAS program, at $20 dictionary the figure is $400,000.00. Thus, $. could be substantially higher, 590,00 is a very conservative amount, the true amount Even though likely much less than the true amount stolen, $293,792.36 is enough money to have paid the annual salary for eight (8) new school teachers for educating our ren. The cri dl al schemes of Priscilla Rocha were varied, well thought out, and allowed to flourish because of the heavy-handed management style which she employed within the AELAS program, and lack of outside accountability. Clearly, the oversight should have been better but micromanagement should not have been necessary over a long time CCSD adminstrator who has a doctorate in education. la Rocha and her associates have tried to change the narrative in this case from them being thieves to having been persecuted. They have tried to make Priscilla Rocha out to be a Robin Hood. The problem is that this is not Sherwood Forest, and the trail of money quickly ends at Priscilla Rocha. The only conduct that a person could attempt to argue was ‘charitable could be the computers to Mexico. That notion, that this conduct was somehow charitable is quickly dispelled in four simple points: 1. The Clark County School District is not a shining beacon of achievement awash with more per-pupil funding that it knows what to do with — itis a struggling district which has to tackle challenges such as poverty, transiency, language proficiency, low achievement scores, truancy, and dropouts. These challenges and historically lower-than-average per pupil funding have led to Nevada schools being ranked at or near the bottom for many years.‘ To steal from a district which itself is at or near * hup:/wwwcesd netiemployeevresourees/palisalary_licensed_erades pdt * hnipsfhvww seviewjounal.convnews/education/nevada-education-ranked-last-nationamount of effort, and requires a serious amount of prison. Thi the bottom and needs help is not conduct worthy of praise or honor - it is disgusting counterproductive behavior perpetrated by someone who in spite of having earned a doctorate in education and paid by the CCSD to help people in our community, is trying to spin doctor her criminal acts. 2. The computers and equipment were paid for with the tax dollars of Clark County residents to benefit the students of the Clark County School District. There is no benefit to anyone in Nevada, except for Priscilla Rocha, for the large “donation” of CCSD computers and other expensive technology to Ensenada, Mexico. 3. Priscilla Rocha’s motivation for providing the computers and other expensive technology to schools in Ensenada, Mexico was to gain personal prestige and recognition as a major philanthropist or benefactor of the schools there. This simple personal aggrandizement. The benefit to Priscilla Rocha additionally, was she didn’t have to pay for any of the items she receive accolades for, the Clark County taxpayers did. 4, Wouldn’t it seem odd to overlook all of the other c Wes a person did, when the entire scope of the crime is overwhelming large in comparison? The math shows that the $13,600.00 in computers only makes up 4.5% of the total amount stolen, $293,792.36. If 95.5% of what Priscilla Rocha stole primarily for herself, her son, and her friends does not substantially outweigh the 4.5% she stole for her ‘philanthropic’ efforts, then we are not working in the real world ~ that is the stuff of fantasy, In order to steal $293,792.36 over the timeframe that Priscilla Rocha did, she pulled off so many crimes that it’s difficult to list them all from memory. Had she committed any one of these crimes, she should have been fired, prosecuted, and sentenced to prison for actions. To commit eight (8) separate schemes to extract money from the school district takes a serious is a tremendous amount of corruption for the CCSD to bear. When a person has shown such callous indifference by many times stealing a large amount of money from an educational institution, they deserve a severe 12punishment. There is no justification for a sentence for Priscilla Rocha less than four (4) to ten (10) years in prison. Tl. MANY RESOURCES EXPENDED _IN_THE INVESTIGATION _AND PROSECUTION OF PRISICLLA ROCHA AND HER CO-DEFENDANTS In March of 2014, LVMPD and the CCSD PD raided the AELAS offices. In the ensuing months, police combed through mountains of paperwork, subpoenaed many bank records, and interviewed many witnesses. Additionally, several Detectives flew out to New Mexico to investigate and interview Donnie Placencia and Jerome Rocha. The Clark County District Attorney's Office also expended a lot of resources prosecuting Priscilla Rocha and her Co-Defendants. On four separate days, testimony and exhibits were received by the Clark County Grand Jury regarding all of the schemes perpetrated by the Defendants. Many meetings and preparation took place in order to present such a voluminous case to the Grand Jury. In total, hundreds of hours were used by many agencies unraveling Defendant Rocha’s schemes, and bringing her to court. There is no justification for a sentence for Priscilla Rocha less than four (4) to ten (10) years in prison. IIL_DEFENDANT’S TENURE AS A SCHOOL ADMINSTRATOR OR _LULAC DIRECTOR SHOULD NOT MITIGATE PUNISHMENT The Defendant will likely try and seek leniency from the Court by claiming that she ‘led a good life’, ‘provided service to others in the school district, children and parents’ and helped the Hispanic community through her leadership in Nevada’s LULAC chapter. It is difficult to rationalize any form of mitigation of punishment, when the reality was that she abused her position as Director of the CCSD’s AELAS program and stole an extreme amount of money for her own personal gain. When weighing whatever Priscilla Rocha claims to have accomplished to help the people of Clark County, it is painstakingly clear that the damage she did to the Clark County School District nullifies all of it, and the damage far outweighs any benefit she provided.Hypocrisy: the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform. Hypocrisy is the word that adequately describe Priscilla Rocha positions, and her behavior. ‘Teaching is considered an honorable profession because it is not about making as much money as one can, but about earning a modest living by educating people and allowing them to become productive members of society. Teachers are role models, mentors, and heroes. Inherent in any discussion of education, is teaching people that they need to follow the rules and have integrity in their profession, When an educator commits as many schemes as Priscilla Rocha did, it destroys the integrity of the lessons she was teaching to people as an educator. Educators need to set the example, hold themselves to a higher standard, and make sure people have faith in public education, Priscilla Rocha did not set a good example, did not follow the rules or the law, and has eroded the public’s faith in the education system, Priscilla Rocha was placed in her position as director of the ABLAS program to provide abenefit to the community. The goal of the AELAS program was to help the parents of Spanish speaking students learn English so they could better assist in their children’s education. The collateral benefit of educating more people who primarily speak Spanish to become bilingual is immeasurable to the person and society. This was a well-intentioned program which Priscilla Rocha destroyed through her crimes. As a person who put significant energy into lobbying for interests important to the Hispanic community, it is quite a contrast to loot and personally enrich herself from the very program set up to help a Hispanic population. As shown, approximately $300,000.00 in money that either should have gone to AELAS or been spent on other critical needs within the CCSD went to Priscilla Rocha, her son, and friends, Because she did these things, the AELAS program has been destroyed. Because the AELAS program no longer exists, many Spanish speaking parents who would have benefited from the English proficiency learned in the AELAS program will not get that opportunity. Likewise, their children will not receive the homework help they could have. a Rocha had done significant damage to the goal of providing English education to the Hispanic community.Itis clear that Priscilla Rocha deserves no mitigation in punishment for having been an educator or for her work in the Hispanic community through LULAC. There is no justification for a sentence for Priscilla Rocha less than four (4) to ten (10) years in prison. IV. DEFENDANT'S AGE, ILLNESSES SHOULD NOT MITIGATE PUNISHMENT The Defendant will likely argue that she is elderly and in poor health, and for those reasons it would be inappropriate to incarcerate Priscilla Rocha. Neither of those reasons should affect the incarceration of Priscilla Rocha. Defendant Rocha started her criminal acts inst the Clark County chool District in 2005. She was 58 years old when she started her criminal schemes. She was 66 years old when the police shut down her criminal schemes. Just over a year ago, Defendant Rocha was the director of the AELAS program, and running a lucrative side business fleecing the school district. Defendant Rocha was well enough and old enough to commit these crimes, and well and old enough to have known better. Defendant Rocha should be punished accordingly, not mitigating any level of punishment due to claimed ailments or age. ‘The Nevada Department of Corrections provides medical care to inmates and has plenty of inmates who have health issues and are of the age of Defendant Rocha. When she committed these crimes, she put herself in jeopardy of not being out-and-about to go see the doctor of her choosing, or to retire on her terms. When Defendant Rocha is incarcerated and is receiving her healthcare in prison, she has nobody to blame but herself. Defendant Rocha is not a special case, and her problems are not the Court’s problems. There is no health or age justification for a sentence for Priscilla Rocha less than four (4) to ten (10) years in prison. a WM aM WM mM aIV. THE TYPE OF OFFENSE, ‘LACK OF CRIMINAL HISTORY’ AND AMOUNT OF RESTITUTION TO BE REPAID SHOULD NOT MITIGATE THE PRISON TERM A. NATURE OF OFFENSE The argument that this is a non-violent property crime should not negate the fact that Defendant Rocha should be sentenced to four (4) to ten (10) years in prison. There are many important reasons why the Defendants’ criminal acts should not be treated like a trivial matter. As stated in this memorandum, the conservative amount of $293,792.36 is an extremely large sum of money to steal. It is nearly $4 times the statutory threshold ($3,500) for the B felony range of punishment. When looking at the punishment aspect of for thefts, clearly minimal thefts deserve less punishment than high level thefts. The fact that the Felony Theft statute allows for punishment of up to 4 to 10 years in prison, per offense, is proof that the legislature intended for there to be harsher punishment for serious theft incidences. Any counter-argument that the range was set-up to punish people who were multiple time convicts, is belied by the fact that we have a habitual criminal statute, NRS 207.010 where much more harsh penalties apply for people with such records. If Priscilla Rocha doesn’t deserve the maximum penalty under the Theft statute, who does? Defendant Rocha also pled guilty to Unlawful Use of Public Money, a D felony. The fact that Priscilla Rocha stole such a large amount of taxpayer money should be counted against her, and also justifies the 4 t0 10 year sentence, The State is not recommending a consecutive sentence for the public money charge, as 4 to 10 years is the appropriate sentence for her conduct. An 84-times-the-threshold stealing from the School District is not your typical ‘non- violent property crime’ and it should be punished harshly by incarceration for a lengthy period of time, 4 to 10 years. B. ‘LACK’ OF CRIMINAL HISTORY The Defendant’s criminal actions did not simply start in her late 50’s, but much earlier, In 1965 Defendant Rocha was committing fraudulent acts, and was sentenced as a felon. In 161998, Defendant Rocha was able to have that conviction pardoned, allowing it to not affect her employment and other civil rights. “You cannot escape your past” as the old saying goes, and Defendant Rocha may have been pardoned, but she still committed the prior felony offense. When looking at criminal history beyond the abovementioned crime, it’s important to look at what exactly she did. Although Defendant Rocha has pled to two (2) felony counts in this case, there were originally fifty (50) charges Defendant Rocha was indicted for. Within those (50) charges, hundreds of individual crimes took place over a span of nearly a decade. This represents a significant criminal history. It this many crimes and not be deterred by morality or the guilt of having done these things. s deeply troubling that a person could commit There is nothing in Defendant Rocha’s criminal history that justifies a sentence of less than 4 to 10 years. C. AMOUNT OF RESTITUTION The large amount of restitution that is required to be repaid should not be a factor in favor of probation. Whether this court finds that restitution should be $293,792.36 or some lesser amount between that and $132,870.00, the fact that itis a Jarge amount and the fact that the Defendant has a retirement income should not be considered against the fact that she deserves to be incarcerated in prison for a lengthy period of time. Poorly made arguments often are presented to the court that there isn’t a “debtor's prison’, and *how are we to ‘make the s whole” if the Defendants are stuck in prison. These arguments fail quickly — because restitution ordered as a result of crime is not a debt; the stealing of money was not a Joan. The Clark County School District can be ‘made whole’ if the Defendant is sent to prison when she eventually paroles. After parole, she will be required to sign a civil confession of judgment in the amount of any restitution due and owing, and that judgment can be enforced against her assets by the victim, ‘The reality of any scenario where the Defendant gets probation and is ordered to pay restitution, is that Nevada’s restitution statutes are wholly lacking in enforceability. ‘The 17Department of Parole and Probation would have the Defendant fill out a form to determine how much of their monthly income can be spared for restitution — the numbers can be skewed to their benefit with minimal accountability. Should the Defendant miss payments, or a significant amount of restitution is unpaid — there is rarely any relief in the way of a revocation of probation. So, simply ordering the Defendant to probation does not fulfil the goal of punishment for those who commit the crime, and rarely gets the victim repaid. Even if the Defendant fully repaid restitution, there is still the fact that this conduct requires significant punishment regarless of repayment. Y._DEFENDANT’S_ CONDUCT CREATED OTHER CRIMINALS DID OTHER DAMAGE As shown by the original Indictment, Defendant Priscilla Rocha had her hand in every single criminal scheme, and often got others involved in helping with or being the beneficiary of criminal proceeds. As a result, five other people were charged and will be convicted due to the conduct of Priscilla Rocha. There is something deeply troubling when people associate with each other to commit crimes. More concerning is when there is a common denominator who, but for her convincing them to get involved these people very likely have committed crimes. Clearly, each of these people had their own mind, and made their own decisions when they decided to do what Priscilla Rocha suggested — so they all deserve their convictions and punishments. This is a very important justification of why Priscilla Rocha deserves 4 to 10 years in prison for her conduct. These are the people who will now have convictions due to Pri Jerome Rocha C-14-299537-5 ~ Pled Guilty to Theft (B Felony), Right to Argue illa Rocha: Jaime Espitia C-14-299537-2 ~ Pled Guilty to Conspiracy to Commit a Crime (GM), Fully Repaid Restitution, Credit for Time Served Donnie Placencia C-14-299537-3 — Pled Guilty to Theft (C Felony), Recommend Probation, Restitution $4,000 joint and several with Priscilla and Jerome Rocha.Andres Mendoza C-14-299537-4 ~ Pled Guilty via Alford to Theft (C Felony), recommend probation, Restitution $2,099.55 joint and several with Priscilla Rocha. Manuel Ramirez C-14-300410-1 — Pled Guilty to Conversion (C Felony), recommend probation, agreement to testify, if honorably discharged may withdraw plea and plead to a Gross Misdemeanor with credit for time served. ‘There were many employees who were suspended from working while their roles in Rocha’s crimes were determined. Some, including Manuel Ramirez, lost his career with the ccs. There is no reason why a person who committed the scope of crime Priscilla Rocha did, and created other criminals toward that end should receive a sentence of less than four (4) to ten (10) years in prison. VI. DEFENDANT PRISCILLA ROCHA DESERVES NO FURTHER LENIANCY THAN THE REDUCED NUMBER OF CHARGES SHE PLED GUILTY TO Defendant Pricilla Rocha was facing fifty (50) felony charges in the original indictment; the guilty plea she entered was to two (2). The reasoning for doing so was that the conduct could be summarized within the two charges, and the sentencing range for Theft and Unlawful Use of Public Money allowed for a reasonable amount of prison time, given the scope of what Rocha did and the fact she pled guilty. It should be sufficiently clear that all of the benefits have been bestowed on Defendant P1 scilla Rocha by virtue of allowing her to plead guilty to a reduced number of felonies, thereby limiting her exposure to a weightier sentence, While the District Court judge has discretion on what to ultimately sentence Rocha and her Co-Defendants to, I believe a compelling case has been made that sentencing her to even one day less than 4 to 10 years would be providing Rocha more leniency than she deserves. Ml WM MmVI. CONCLUSION Punishment for a total term of 4 to 10 years in prison is a justified and reasonable sentence for Defendant Priscilla Rocha. Theft and Unlawful Use of Public Money should not, and will not be tolerated in Clark County. Therefore, the State strongly recommends a sentence of 4 to 10 years and restitution ordered in the amount of $293,792.36 to the Clark County School District DATED this_23rd_day of June, 2015 Respectfully submitted, STEVEN B. WOLFSON Clark County District Attorney Nevada Bar # 001565 BY /s/JAY P. RAMAN JAY P. RAMAN Chief Deputy District Attorney Nevada Bar #010193 CERTIFICATE OF ELECTRONIC FILING Thereby certify that service of the above and foregoing, was made this 24th day of June, 2015, by Electronic Filing to: Thomas Pitaro, Esq 20