Free Order of Detention - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:01-cr-00249-WDM

Document 34

Filed 04/16/2007

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Magistrate Judge Gudrun J. Rice UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. CHARLES EDWARD CURTIS, Defendant Case Number 01-cr-00249-WDM ORDER OF DETENTION This matter was before the Court for a preliminary hearing and a detention hearing on supervised release violations on April 16, 2007. Judith Smith represented the government and Janine Yunker represented the Defendant, who was present. Defendant waived his right to a preliminary hearing. A detention hearing was not held because defendant does not contest the government' motion for detention at this time. s In order to sustain a motion for detention on charges of violations of conditions of supervised release or probation after conviction, the Bail Reform Act (" Act" the ) requires detention if there is probable cause to believe that the person has committed a Federal, State, or local crime while on release, or if there is a finding by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has violated any other condition of release or if there is a finding, by a preponderance of the evidence, that there is no condition or combination of conditions that will assure that the person will not flee or pose a danger to the community under §3142(g) of the Act or that the person is unlikely to abide by any condition or combination of conditions of release. See 18 U.S.C. §3148 (b). Under Rule 32.1 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the court " may release or detain the [defendant] under 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a) pending further proceedings." The burden of establishing that the person will not flee or pose a danger to any other person or to the community rests with the defendant. See Rule 32.1(a)(6). Defendant was placed on supervision by the Honorable Walker D. Miller sitting in the court at Denver, Colorado on the 28th day of September 2001, who fixed the period of supervision at three (3) years commencing March 27, 2007. Defendant has been charged with violating the terms and conditions of his supervised release. Particularly, defendant is charged with 1) failing to notify his probation officer of his change of address at least 10 days prior to the move, 2) failing to participate in substance abuse treatment as directed by the probation officer, by failing to provide a urine specimen on March 31, 2007 and April 4, 2007 and by failing to attend his scheduled substance abuse assessment on April 3, 2007, all in violation of defendant' s terms of supervised release. See April 6, 2007 Petition and Attachment thereto.

Case 1:01-cr-00249-WDM

Document 34

Filed 04/16/2007

Page 2 of 3

The Bail Reform Act, at 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g), directs the court to consider the following factors in determining whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and the safety of any other person and the community: (1) [t]he nature and circumstances of the offense charged, including whether the offense is a crime of violence or involves a narcotic drug; the weight of the evidence against the person; the history and characteristics of the person, including ­ (A) the person' character, physical and mental condition, family ties, s employment, financial resources, length of residence in the community, community ties, past conduct, history relating to drug or alcohol abuse, criminal history, and record concerning appearance at court proceedings; and (B) whether at the time of the current offense or arrest, the person was on probation, on parole, or on other release pending trial, sentencing, appeal, or completion of sentence for an offense under Federal, State or local law; and

(2) (3)

(4)

the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that would be posed by the person' release. s

In making my findings of fact, I have considered defendant' position not to s contest detention, defendant' waiver of the preliminary hearing and also the s information in the petition for revocation of supervised release. Weighing the statutory factors set forth in the Bail Reform Act, I make the following findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order for detention. First, defendant is charged with violating the conditions of supervised release as described above. Second, I was not given any information, with regard to the petition for revocation of supervised release, about defendant' background or his characteristics s as of the date of the alleged violations or as of the time of hearing on April 16, 2007. Third, I do not have any current information, with regard to the petition for revocation of supervised release, about defendant' criminal record, or about the s nature of the underlying conviction. As a result, after considering all of these factors, and particularly, defendant' s 2

Case 1:01-cr-00249-WDM

Document 34

Filed 04/16/2007

Page 3 of 3

decision not to contest the government' detention motion, I conclude, for purposes of s this detention order only, that defendant has violated one or more of the conditions of supervised release. Defendant has not shown that he is not a flight risk or that there are conditions under which I could release him and be assured that he would appear for court proceedings. Further, the defendant has not shown that he will not pose a danger to any other person or to the community if he were released. For the reasons stated, it is hereby ORDERED that defendant is a flight risk and a danger to the public and is to be detained pending further proceedings. It is further ORDERED that defendant shall be committed to the custody of the Attorney General or his designee for confinement in a corrections facility separate, to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences, or being held in custody pending appeal. It is further ORDERED that defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation with counsel. It is further ORDERED that upon an order of a court of the United States, or upon request of an attorney for the Government, the person in charge of the corrections facility in which the defendant is confined shall deliver the defendant to a United States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with any Court proceeding in this matter. Dated April 16, 2007. By the Court: s/Gudrun J Rice Gudrun J. Rice, Magistrate Judge

3