Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. RODRIGUEZ, 1:16-cr-00068-DAD-SKO. (2017)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20170306754 Visitors: 1
Filed: Mar. 03, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2017
Summary: ORDER ADDRESSING THIRD PARTY CUSTODIAN ELENA TORRES STANLEY A. BOONE , Magistrate Judge . Defendant Esteban Rodriguez was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) by a complaint filed on February 29, 2016. (ECF No. 1.) On May 3, 2016, Defendant Esteban Rodriguez was ordered released pursuant to an order setting conditions of release. (ECF Nos. 10, 11.) As a condition of release, Defendant was to participate in a drug treatment program and,
More

ORDER ADDRESSING THIRD PARTY CUSTODIAN ELENA TORRES

Defendant Esteban Rodriguez was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) by a complaint filed on February 29, 2016. (ECF No. 1.) On May 3, 2016, Defendant Esteban Rodriguez was ordered released pursuant to an order setting conditions of release. (ECF Nos. 10, 11.)

As a condition of release, Defendant was to participate in a drug treatment program and, after completion of the program, to participate in a location monitoring program which required him to have a location monitoring unit installed at his residence and a radio frequency transmitter attached to his person. (ECF No. 10.) The defendant was to remain inside his residence at all times except for "employment; education; religious services; medical, substance abuse, or mental health treatment; attorney visits; court appearances; court-ordered obligations; or other activities pre-approved by the PSO." (ECF No. 10 at 2.) As the third party custodian, Elena Torres agreed "(a) to supervise the defendant in accordance with all conditions of release, (b) to use every effort to assure the appearance of the defendant at all scheduled court proceedings, and (c) to notify the court immediately in the event the defendant violates any conditions of release or disappears." (Id.) On October 4, 2016, Defendant's pretrial release conditions were modified and Defendant was to remain inside his residence every day from 9:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. (ECF No. 19.)

On January 17, 2017, a pretrial release violation petition was filed which alleged that the defendant had possession of marijuana, a digital scale, and several clear plastic baggies and tested positive for the presence of cannabinoids. (ECF No. 22.) Defendant admitted the pretrial services violation at a hearing on January 20, 2017. (ECF No. 23.) A modified order issued setting conditions of release. (ECF No. 26.) Defendant was ordered to remain inside his residence at all times except for "employment; education; religious services; medical, substance abuse, or mental health treatment; attorney visits; court appearances; court-ordered obligations; or other activities pre-approved by the PSO." (Id.)

On February 21, 2017, a pretrial services violation petition was filed. (ECF No. 27.) The petition stated:

The defendant was approved by Pretrial Services to travel from his residence in Coalinga, California on February 18, 2017, to attend his uncle's funeral in Fresno. He was directed by Pretrial Services to return to his residence by 6:30pm. Mr. Rodriguez failed to return home as directed. Pretrial Services contacted him at 6:45pm and he explained he was running late due to the in-climate weather resulting in detours. The defendant failed to return home. Pretrial Services contacted the defendant's mother/third party custodian at 2:30am and she advised she had spoken to the defendant at 9:00pm and he advised her that he was almost home, however he never returned home. Several subsequent attempts by Pretrial Services and the third party custodian to contact the defendant on his cellular

telephone were unsuccessful. (Id.) An arrest warrant issued on February 21, 2017. (ECF No. 21.) Based on the Court's understanding that the defendant had been approved to attend the funeral because the third party custodian had stated she would accompany him, on February 24, 2017, an order issued requiring Elena Torres to appear on March 2, 2017. (ECF No. 29.)

At the March 2, 2017 hearing, the Court determined that Elena Torres may be in criminal contempt for the breach of her duties to act as third party custodian and the matter was referred to the United States Attorney. Based upon the March 2, 2017 hearing, the Court finds that Elena Torres conduct was irresponsible at best and breached her duties as a third party custodian. Should Elena Torres be considered for a third party custodian in any case in the future or to be a responsible fiduciary, Elena Torres cannot be trusted to fulfill any such duties. Because potential criminal contempt charges could be filed, the court appointed counsel to represent her, advised her of her right to remain silent and advised of potential penalties.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer