Although the federal appeals court based in Denver rejected nearly all arguments from a man convicted of brutally beating his wife into unconsciousness, it conceded the trial judge had improperly sentenced him at a higher level than guidelines allow.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit vacated the 30-year prison sentence of David Sidney Wells on Wednesday, finding U.S. District Court Senior Judge Robert E. Blackburn mistakenly concluded Wells had obstructed justice by writing a letter of regret to his victim two days after the jury’s verdict. Although there was a no-contact order in place between Wells and his wife, Wells’ behavior merited a lengthened sentence only if he “willfully” attempted to obstruct justice.

“There is simply nothing in the letter that indicates an intention on the part of Wells to influence (the victim’s) potential testimony at the upcoming sentencing hearing,” wrote Senior Judge Michael R. Murphy in the panel’s July 6 opinion.

Otherwise, the 10th Circuit upheld Wells’ four convictions from February 2020, stemming from what Colorado’s top federal prosecutor at the time called an “almost unimaginable” level of brutality.

Wells and his wife, identified as V.W., were both American Indians living in Towaoc on the Ute Mountain Ute Indian Reservation — enabling the federal government to assert jurisdiction over the criminal case. On March 9, 2019, a drunken Wells accused V.W. of being pregnant by another man, then dragged her by her hair through their house. She tried to flee multiple times, but Wells grabbed her in the same manner each time and dragged her back.

He then beat her with a wooden club, telling her any alleged baby in her “would be dead.” Wells penetrated V.W.’s genitals with his fingers, finally choking her until she lost consciousness.

A hospital ordered V.W. “life-flighted” to Lakewood, where a doctor found numerous traumatic injuries requiring intensive care.

A grand jury indicted Wells for aggravated sexual abuse, assault with intent to commit aggravated sexual abuse, assault resulting in serious bodily injury and assault with a dangerous weapon in Indian Country. On Feb. 7, 2020, jurors convicted him on all counts. The prosecution calculated that sentencing guidelines called for imprisonment between 360 months and life.

Prior to sentencing, the government asked Blackburn to initiate contempt proceedings against Wells. Prosecutors learned V.W. had received a handwritten letter dated Feb. 9, 2020 and signed by her husband.

“Well I don’t know if you know but they found me guilty Friday dang thought I was going to make it. You know I am sorry for whatever happened that day,” the quasi-apologetic letter read. “I guess I still love you but hope you find what you are looking for & be happy don’t know whats gunna happen to the kids.”

Immediately after his arrest, a magistrate judge directed Wells not to contact V.W. The government asserted the letter amounted to intentional disobedience of that court order. Blackburn set a contempt hearing for two days after he was scheduled to sentence Wells.

In the meantime, a probation officer submitted a presentence investigation report with a recommendation to increase Wells’ offense level for his effort to obstruct justice through the letter. The prosecution indicated it would not pursue the contempt charge if Blackburn instead factored the letter into Wells’ sentence.

Although the judge ultimately settled on a sentence for Wells at the low end of the range, he believed the obstruction-of-justice enhancement should apply because Wells had violated what was “quintessentially” a restraining order.

“Viewing the record as a whole, it is clear that Mr. Wells intended to exert influence and control over the victim. That is precisely the case with the letter dated February 9, 2020, regardless of how innocuous otherwise it may appear,” Blackburn said. “This is an effort to willfully obstruct, impede, or attempt to obstruct and impede the administration of justice.”

In Wells’ appeal to the 10th Circuit, he pointed out Blackburn had made no specific findings about the letter’s effect on the proceedings, nor about Wells’ intent in writing it. Wells also declined to acknowledge whether he even authored the letter. The government countered the letter may have succeeded in deterring V.W. from participating in the sentencing hearing, as she never appeared in court.

The 10th Circuit’s panel was skeptical of the prosecution’s interpretation during oral arguments, with Judge Scott M. Matheson Jr. indicating the “apology letter” did not register to him as obstruction of justice.

“What did the letter obstruct the victim from doing?” he asked Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey K. Graves.

“Our position is it potentially obstructed the victim’s inclination to appear in court and to discuss with the court the impact that this has had on her life,” Graves replied. “This is clearly an instance of domestic violence, and witness tampering is an endemic problem —”

“The trial’s over,” Matheson interrupted. “I’m not seeing where you make a witness tampering argument.”

The panel sided with Wells, agreeing with other federal circuit courts that violations of no-contact orders qualify as obstruction of justice only if a defendant has the intent to interfere with his sentencing.

“If anything, the letter’s contents indicate Wells thought a thirty-year sentence was a fait accompli,” Murphy observed in the opinion. “And, most importantly, the letter reflects regret that his actions likely left little chance of a relationship with his children.”

The panel concluded Wells’ appeal by rejecting his other claims that two of his convictions were duplicative of each other, that jury instructions were faulty, and that Blackburn should not have allowed V.W.’s treating physician in Lakewood to testify about V.W.’s risk of death from her injuries. Wells also unsuccessfully challenged Blackburn’s decision to increase Wells’ offense level for “abducting” V.W. by dragging her across the home to beat her.

“V.W.’s movement was anything but trivial. Wells grabbed her by the hair at the precipice of the door exiting the house, dragged her through a kitchen into a back bedroom. He did this three times,” Murphy wrote in support of labeling Wells’ conduct as “abduction.”

The case is United States v. Wells.