Free Order of Detention - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:01-cr-00304-WYD

Document 54

Filed 10/16/2007

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Case No. 01-cr-00304-WYD UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT E. CHARLTON, Defendant.

ORDER OF DETENTION

This matter was before the Court for a preliminary and detention hearing concerning an alleged supervised release violation on October 16, 2007. Assistant United States Attorney Linda McMahan represented the government, and Martha Eskeson represented the Defendant. The Defendant contested detention. The Court has concluded, by clear and convincing evidence, that Defendant presents a danger to the community (including himself), based on the attached findings. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney General or his designated representative for confinement in a corrections facility separate, to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendant is to be afforded reasonable opportunity to consult confidentially with defense counsel; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that upon order of this Court or on request of an attorney for the United States of America, the person in charge of the corrections facility shall deliver Defendant to the United States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with this proceeding.

Case 1:01-cr-00304-WYD

Document 54

Filed 10/16/2007

Page 2 of 4

DATED and ENTERED this 16th day of October, 2007. By the Court: S/Michael E. Hegarty Michael E. Hegarty United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:01-cr-00304-WYD

Document 54

Filed 10/16/2007

Page 3 of 4

United States v. Robert E. Charlton Case No. 01-cr-00304-WYD FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, and REASONS FOR ORDER OF DETENTION In order to sustain a motion for detention, the government must establish that (a) there is no condition or combination of conditions which could be imposed in connection with pretrial release that would reasonably insure the defendant's presence for court proceedings; or (b) there is no condition or combination of conditions which could be imposed in connection with pretrial release that would reasonably insure the safety of any other person or the community. If there is probable cause to believe that the defendant committed an offense which carries a maximum term of imprisonment of over 10 years and is an offense prescribed by the Controlled Substances Act, or if the defendant is charged with a crime of violence, a rebuttable presumption arises that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of the community. The Bail Reform Act, 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's character, physical and mental condition, family ties, 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 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)

(B)

(4)

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

1

Case 1:01-cr-00304-WYD

Document 54

Filed 10/16/2007

Page 4 of 4

The Court has taken judicial notice of the Court's file, the testimony presented at the hearing on this matter, and the arguments of counsel. Weighing the statutory factors set forth in the Bail Reform Act, I find the following: The Petition on Supervised Release which has issued in this case charges Defendant with violations relating to (1) Use of Cocaine; (2) Use of Alcohol; and (3) Failure to Provide Urine Samples. A rebuttable presumption does not apply here. Second, Defendant has conceded probable cause for the alleged violations. Third, Defendant has multiple violations, each of which is admitted and many of which occurred after threats from the federal probation office that measures would have to be taken if Defendant did not discontinue the violations. The Court considers the alleged multiple violations for cocaine use as a particularly serious risk to the community or to the Defendant. After considering all the relevant factors, I conclude there is clear and convincing evidence that no condition or combination of conditions for release will reasonably assure the safety of the community pending Defendant's appearance before Judge Daniel on the alleged violations.

2