Filed: Jul. 17, 2017
Latest Update: Jul. 17, 2017
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON DEFENDANT'S ADMISSION TO VIOLATION NUMBER 2 AS SET FORTH IN THE PETITION ALLEGING VIOLATIONS OF SUPERVISED RELEASE SHANIEK M. MAYNARD , Magistrate Judge . THIS CAUSE having come before the Court for a final hearing on July 13, 2017, in respect to the pending Petition Alleging Violations of Supervised Release [D.E. 244] ("Petition"), and this Court having convened a hearing, now recommends to the District Court as follows: 1. The Defendant appeared before this
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON DEFENDANT'S ADMISSION TO VIOLATION NUMBER 2 AS SET FORTH IN THE PETITION ALLEGING VIOLATIONS OF SUPERVISED RELEASE SHANIEK M. MAYNARD , Magistrate Judge . THIS CAUSE having come before the Court for a final hearing on July 13, 2017, in respect to the pending Petition Alleging Violations of Supervised Release [D.E. 244] ("Petition"), and this Court having convened a hearing, now recommends to the District Court as follows: 1. The Defendant appeared before this ..
More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON DEFENDANT'S ADMISSION TO VIOLATION NUMBER 2 AS SET FORTH IN THE PETITION ALLEGING VIOLATIONS OF SUPERVISED RELEASE
SHANIEK M. MAYNARD, Magistrate Judge.
THIS CAUSE having come before the Court for a final hearing on July 13, 2017, in respect to the pending Petition Alleging Violations of Supervised Release [D.E. 244] ("Petition"), and this Court having convened a hearing, now recommends to the District Court as follows:
1. The Defendant appeared before this Court on July 13, 2017 for a final hearing and detention hearing in respect to the Petition, which alleges the following violations of supervised release:
Violation Number 1 Violation of Mandatory Condition, by
failing to refrain from violation of
the law. On or about January 27, 2017,
in Saint Lucie County, Florida, the
defendant did commit Battery, contrary
to Florida Statute 784.03(1)(a)(1).
Violation Number 2 Violation of Mandatory Condition, by
failing to refrain from violation of
the law. On or about February 6, 2017,
in Saint Lucie County, Florida, the
defendant did commit Violation of
Injunction against Domestic Violence,
contrary to Florida Statute
741.31(4)(a).
2. After consultation with his attorney, the Defendant announced to this Court that he wished to admit Violation Number 2 as set forth in the Petition. The government announced that it agreed to seek dismissal of Violation Number 1 of the Petition at sentencing. This Court questioned the Defendant on the record and made certain that he understood his rights in regards to an evidentiary hearing in respect to the alleged violations. The Defendant acknowledged that he understood his rights in that regard and further understands that all that will remain will be for the District Court to conduct a sentencing hearing for final disposition in this matter.
3. Counsel for the parties agreed that the Court could take judicial notice of the Judgment and Sentence entered in State of Florida v. Paul James Richardson, Case Number 562017MM000338A, in the Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit in and for St. Lucie County, Florida. The Government introduced a certified copy of this Judgment as Government's Exhibit 1. This document shows the Defendant pleaded no contest to the charge of Criminal Violation of Domestic Violence Injunction, in violation of Florida Statute 741.31, and was adjudicated guilty on June 27, 2017. The Court finds that this certified judgment establishes a sufficient basis to support the Defendant's admission to Violation Number 2 as set forth in the Petition.
4. The possible maximum penalties faced by the Defendant were read into the record by the government, and Defendant stated that he understood those penalties.
ACCORDINGLY, based upon the Defendant's admission to Violation Number 2 of the Petition under oath, this Court recommends to the District Court that the Defendant be found to have violated his supervised release in respect to Violation Number 2, and that a sentencing hearing be set at the earliest convenience of the District Court for final disposition of this matter.
At the July 13th hearing, the parties agreed to an abbreviated time frame for filing objections to this Report and Recommendation, if any, with the Honorable Donald L. Graham, the United States District Judge assigned to this case. Based on this request, the parties shall file objections to this Report and Recommendation, if any, by 12:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 20, 2017. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 59(b)(2), failure to file objections timely waives a party's right to review and bars the parties from attacking on appeal any legal rulings and factual findings contained herein.
DONE AND SUBMITTED.
