U.S. v. Gutierrez, 1:11-CR-00354 LJO. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20150206980
Visitors: 24
Filed: Feb. 05, 2015
Latest Update: Feb. 05, 2015
Summary: STIPULATION REGARDING RDAP PROGRAM; FINDINGS AND ORDER LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL, District Judge. Defendant, Felipe Gutierrez, by and through his counsel of record, TONI WHITE, and the GOVERNMENT hereby stipulate as follows: 1. The Court sentenced Mr. Gutierrez on October 15, 2013. The defendant requested the RDAP program. The Probation report did not recommend the RDAP program. Defense counsel requested, at the last minute after a long discussion about the court's recommendation on housing within
Summary: STIPULATION REGARDING RDAP PROGRAM; FINDINGS AND ORDER LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL, District Judge. Defendant, Felipe Gutierrez, by and through his counsel of record, TONI WHITE, and the GOVERNMENT hereby stipulate as follows: 1. The Court sentenced Mr. Gutierrez on October 15, 2013. The defendant requested the RDAP program. The Probation report did not recommend the RDAP program. Defense counsel requested, at the last minute after a long discussion about the court's recommendation on housing within B..
More
STIPULATION REGARDING RDAP PROGRAM; FINDINGS AND ORDER
LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL, District Judge.
Defendant, Felipe Gutierrez, by and through his counsel of record, TONI WHITE, and the GOVERNMENT hereby stipulate as follows:
1. The Court sentenced Mr. Gutierrez on October 15, 2013. The defendant requested the RDAP program. The Probation report did not recommend the RDAP program. Defense counsel requested, at the last minute after a long discussion about the court's recommendation on housing within BOP, that defendant receive the RDAP program. Defense counsel and defendant recalled that the Court said something to the effect of "that's fine" with a wave of the hand as sentencing was coming to a close. Defense counsel and defendant were left with the impression that defendant could apply for the RDAP program.
2. Defendant contacted defense counsel from custody and indicated that BOP indicated there was no recommendation for RDAP in defendant's paperwork. Defense counsel checked the judgment and there was no RDAP indication. Defense counsel checked with the court clerk who talked to the court reporter who indicated that there was no mention of RDAP in the transcript.
3. Defense counsel cannot now, faced with the transcript, cannot say for certain that RDAP was ordered but can say with certainty that both she and the defendant were left with a sense of relief after sentencing based on the belief that RDAP was recommended.
4. Defense counsel conferred with probation officer Megan Pascual who had no mention of RDAP being recommended in her notes and no independent recollection of it.
5. Defense counsel conferred with AUSA Kimberly Sanchez and she has no objection to the defendant's request for the RDAP program if the Court were to now entertain recommending it.
Defendant requests based on the foregoing that the Court issue a recommendation for defendant to participate in the RDAP program.
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
