Free Sealed Document - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:04-cr-00019-EWN

Document 39

Filed 12/16/2005

Page 1 of 6

PROB 12 (02/05-D/CO)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO U. S. A. vs. Gillian Sandoval Docket Number: 04-cr-00019-EWN Petition on Probation COMES NOW, Sarah J. Hoppe, probation officer of the court, presenting an official report upon the conduct and attitude of Gillian Sandoval who was placed on supervision by the Honorable Edward W. Nottingham sitting in the court at Denver, Colorado, on the 7th day of May, 2004, who fixed the period of supervision at five years, and imposed the general terms and conditions theretofore adopted by the court and also imposed special conditions and terms as follows: 1. The defendant shall participate in a program of testing and treatment for drug abuse, as directed by the probation officer, until such time as the defendant is released from the program by the probation officer. The defendant shall abstain from the use of alcohol or other intoxicants during the course of treatment. The defendant will be required to pay the cost of treatment as directed by the probation officer. The defendant shall participate in a program of testing and treatment for alcohol abuse, as directed by the probation officer, until such time as the defendant is released from the program by the probation officer. The defendant shall abstain from the use of alcohol or other intoxicants during the course of treatment. The defendant will be required to pay the cost of the treatment as directed by the probation officer. The defendant shall participate in a program of mental health treatment, as directed by the probation officer, until such time as the defendant is released from the program by the probation officer. The defendant will be required to pay the cost of treatment as directed by the probation officer. The court authorizes the probation officer to release psychological reports and/or the presentence report to the treatment agency for continuity of treatment. The defendant shall be placed on home detention for a period of 4 months, to commence within 21 days of sentencing. During this time, the defendant shall remain at her place of residence except for employment and other activities approved in advance by the probation officer. The defendant shall maintain a telephone at her place of residence without any special services, modems, answering machines, cordless telephones for the above period. The defendant shall wear an electronic device and shall observe the rules specified by the Probation Department. The defendant will be required to pay the cost of electronic monitoring as directed by the probation officer.

2.

3.

4.

On June 30, 2005, the defendant' conditions of probation were modified to include the following special condition: s 5. The defendant shall be placed on home detention with electronic monitoring for a period of up to 4 months, to commence within 21 days of the order. The defendant will remain at her residence at all times except for activities approved in advance by the probation officer. The defendant will be required to pay the cost of home detention.

RESPECTFULLY PRESENTING PETITION FOR ACTION OF COURT FOR CAUSE AS FOLLOWS:
(If short insert here: if lengthy write on separate sheet and attach)

See attachment hereto and herein incorporated by reference

Case 1:04-cr-00019-EWN

Document 39

Filed 12/16/2005

Page 2 of 6

PRAYING THAT THE COURT WILL ORDER that a warrant be issued for the above defendant for violations of probation and that said warrant be sealed until the arrest of the defendant.

ORDER OF THE COURT Considered and ordered this 16th day of December, 2005, and ordered filed and made a part of the record in the above case. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. s/Richard Vaccaro for Sarah J. Hoppe Sarah J. Hoppe Senior U.S. Probation Officer s/ Edward W. Nottingham Edward W. Nottingham United States District Judge Place: Denver, Colorado Date: December 15, 2005

Case 1:04-cr-00019-EWN

Document 39

Filed 12/16/2005

Page 3 of 6

ATTACHMENT Attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference, is a true copy of the conditions of probation which were read and provided to the defendant on May 7, 2004. Her signature acknowledged that the conditions had been read to her, that she fully understood the conditions, and that she was provided a copy of them. The term of probation commenced on May 7, 2004. The petition is based on the following facts: 1) USE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE:

On or about February 24, May 9, May 13, and June 22, 2005, the defendant submitted a random urine specimen at ARTS Crosspoint, which returned positive for Cocaine, which constitutes a Grade C violation of probation. This charge is based on the following facts: On February 24, 2005, the defendant submitted a random urine specimen at ARTS Crosspoint which returned positive for Cocaine. The defendant admitted to using Cocaine and was placed in weekly treatment at the ARTS facility. On May 9, 2005, the defendant submitted a random urine specimen which returned positive for Cocaine. The defendant again admitted to using Cocaine. On May 13, 2005, the defendant submitted a random urine specimen which returned positive for Cocaine. The nanogram level from the specimen submitted on May 9, 2005, was 902. The level from the specimen submitted on May 13, 2005, was 387. Dr. Jamber of Quest diagnostics indicated that the nanogram level from May 13, 2005, is likely indicative of no new drug use.

2)

FAILURE TO PARTICIPATE IN DRUG TESTING/TREATMENT:

On or about October 26, and December 7, 2004, January 11, January 25, February 4, March 8, March 25, April 22, May 6, May 25, and June 13, 2005, the defendant failed to submit a random urine specimen at ARTS Crosspoint, which constitutes a Grade C violation of probation. This charge is based on the following facts: The defendant was enrolled at ARTS Crosspoint for drug testing on May 7, 2004. The defendant failed to submit a random urine specimen as scheduled on the above dates.

3)

USE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE:

On or about December 12, 2005, the defendant submitted a random urine specimen at ARTS Crosspoint which returned positive for Cocaine, which constitutes a Grade C violation of probation. This charge is based on the following facts: On December 12, 2005, the defendant submitted a random urine specimen at ARTS Crosspoint which returned positive for Cocaine. The defendant has not been confronted about this positive urine specimen.

Case 1:04-cr-00019-EWN

Document 39

Filed 12/16/2005

Page 4 of 6

4)

FAILURE TO PARTICIPATE IN DRUG TREATMENT:

On or about November 3, and December 8, 2005, the defendant failed to attend individual counseling at ARTS Crosspoint as scheduled, which constitutes a Grade C violation of probation. This charge is based on the following facts: On the above dates, the defendant was scheduled to meet with Marge Swanson at ARTS Crosspoint for individual counseling. She failed to appear on these dates with no verifiable excuses.

5)

FAILURE TO PARTICIPATE IN DRUG TESTING:

On or about July 15, September 9, October 10, November 8, and December 9, 2005, the defendant failed to submit random urine specimens at ARTS Crosspoint as directed, which constitutes a Grade C violation of probation. This charge is based on the following facts: On the above dates, the defendant failed to submit random urine specimens at ARTS Crosspoint as directed. The defendant was not excused on these dates and offered no verifiable excuses for the misses.

6)

VIOLATION OF CONDITIONS OF HOME DETENTION:

On or about October 25, 2005, the defendant failed to return home as scheduled at 10:30 p.m., which constitutes a Grade C violation of probation. This charge is based on the following facts: On October 25, 2005, the defendant was on home detention with electronic monitoring and was scheduled to return home before 10:30 p.m. The defendant failed to return and did not leave any messages as to her whereabouts. The defendant returned home at 5:30 a.m. on October 26, 2005. The Probation Department made numerous attempts to reach the defendant at her residence and she did not answer her phone. I contacted the Westminster Police Department and requested they conduct a welfare check on the defendant at her residence as she was away from home all night and I had been unable to contact her. An officer with the Westminster Police Department contacted me to advise that they did contact the defendant at her residence and that when they arrived she was sitting on her porch smoking. The officer indicated that the defendant was aware she had been in violation of her home detention conditions and knew that she needed to call me. When the defendant eventually called me after the police left her residence, she reported that she was away from her home overnight because her mother had threatened to commit suicide. However, she also acknowledged that she did not contact the police nor was her mother taken to the hospital. Therefore, her whereabouts from 10:30 p.m. until 5:00 a.m. the following morning are unknown. To date she has failed to provide a verifiable excuse for her actions.

Case 1:04-cr-00019-EWN

Document 39

Filed 12/16/2005

Page 5 of 6

7)

FAILURE TO REPORT LAW ENFORCEMENT CONTACT:

On or about November 24, 2005, the defendant was contacted by the Colorado State Patrol for Failing to Provide Information at the Scene of an Accident, and Driving without a License, which constitute Grade C violations of probation. This charge is based on the following facts: On November 28, 2005, I received a teletype from the Colorado State Patrol reflecting that the defendant was involved in a hit and run accident on November 24, 2005. She left the scene of the accident and was later contacted by the police at her mother' home of 7340 Tennyson. The defendant admitted to leaving the scene and said she did so because she was aware s she did not have a valid drivers license. According to the officer, the defendant received a citation for these offenses and has a pending court date. The defendant failed to report this law enforcement contact to me within 72 hours as required. I contacted the defendant on December 6, 2005, after leaving information with ARTS Crosspoint treatment agency that I was attempting to contact her and had been unsuccessful. I confronted the defendant about the law enforcement contact and she acknowledged that she was required to contact me regarding the situation but stated that she had too many things going on and had forgotten to do so.

8)

FAILURE TO NOTIFY OFFICER OF CHANGE IN EMPLOYMENT:

On or about October 26, 2005, the defendant was terminated from her employment and failed to notify the probation officer as required, which constitutes a Grade C violation of probation. This charge is based on the following facts: On October 25, 2005, the defendant was in violation of her home detention conditions by being away from her home unauthorized from 10:30 p.m. until 5:30 a.m. on October 26, 2005. When the defendant returned home, numerous attempts were made by probation to contact the defendant on her residential phone number, but she failed to answer. I contacted the defendant' employer to see if the defendant had reported to work and I was told that she had not. I was also told that she s had been terminated because of numerous absences and the fact that on this date she did not show for work nor did she call in. On October 26, 2005, at approximately 3:00 p.m., I was finally able to contact the defendant at her residence. During this contact I asked her if she was aware she had been fired from her job and she indicated that she knew she had been fired. She also acknowledged that she needed to contact me to advise me of the situation, but had forgot to do so.

9)

FAILURE TO REPORT TO PROBATION AS DIRECTED:

On or about December 6, 2005, the defendant was directed to report to the Probation Office at 9:00am on December 7, 2005, to meet with both myself and Supervising Probation Officer, Richard Vaccaro to discuss her recent violations. The defendant failed to report as scheduled, which constitutes a Grade C violation of probation. This charge is based on the following facts:

Case 1:04-cr-00019-EWN

Document 39

Filed 12/16/2005

Page 6 of 6

On December 6, 2005, I contacted the defendant on her cell phone. I discussed with the defendant her various violations of probation and instructed her to report to the probation office the following day on December 7, 2005 at 9:00am. The defendant agreed. The defendant called me at 9:00am and reported she had missed the bus and that the next one did not come for another hour. The defendant was instructed to report to the probation office as soon as possible. The defendant failed to report to the probation office. She left a message at 2:00 p.m. reporting that she lost her bus transfer and did not have anymore money to travel to our office and therefore would not be coming in as scheduled.

10)

FAILURE TO REPORT A CHANGE IN RESIDENCE:

On or about November 21, 2005, the defendant failed to report a change in residence to her probation officer as required, which constitutes a Grade C violation of probation. This charge is based on the following facts: On November 18, 2005, the defendant' landlord left me a voice mail message indicating that he was evicting the defendant s from her residence for failure to pay her rent. On November 21, 2005, the defendant left me a voice mail message reporting that she was evicted from her apartment and would be moving in with her mother. The defendant never reported to me where her mother lived or how I could get in contact with her.