Free Order of Detention - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:01-cr-00341-WDM

Document 57

Filed 03/07/2007

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Case No.: 01-cr-00341-WDM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff, v. PERFECTO VILLARREAL, Defendant.

ORDER OF DETENTION THIS MATTER came before the Court for a detention hearing on March 7, 2007. Present were the following: Judith Smith, Assistant United States Attorney, Edward Pluss, counsel for the defendant, and the defendant. The Court reviewed the entire court file and considered the comments of counsel and the defendant. The Court has concluded, by a preponderance of the evidence, that no condition or combination of conditions of release will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant, and has found that there is clear and convincing evidence that no condition or combination of conditions for release will reasonably assure the safety of the community, based upon the attached findings. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney General or their 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 a 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-00341-WDM

Document 57

Filed 03/07/2007

Page 2 of 3

DATED and ENTERED this 7th day of March, 2007. By the Court: s/ Craig B. Shaffer Craig B. Shaffer United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:01-cr-00341-WDM

Document 57

Filed 03/07/2007

Page 3 of 3

United States v. Perfecto Villarreal Case Number 01-cr-00341-WDM

FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW and REASONS FOR ORDER OF DETENTION This matter comes before the court on a Petition on Conditional Release and Warrant for Arrest of Probationer/Supervised Release. The Petition alleges that on December 8, 2003, the defendant was placed on supervision by District Judge Miller, subject to standard conditions of release and with the special condition that the defendant participate in a program of mental health treatment, and that the defendant remain medication compliant and take all psychiatric medications prescribed by treating mental health professionals. During a hearing on March 7, 2007, the defendant waived his right to a preliminary hearing under Rule 32.1 of the Federal of Criminal Procedure, and did not present any information relating to the issue of detention. The defendant, through counsel, also advised the court that he was not contesting the government' request for detention. Based upon the facts s alleged in the Petition and in light of the defendant' waiver, the court finds that probable cause s exists to believe that the defendant violated one or more conditions of his release. Under analogous circumstances in cases involving alleged violations of supervised release, the court " may release or detain the [defendant] under 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a) pending further proceedings. The burden of establishing that the person will not flee or pose a danger to any other person or to the community rests with the [defendant]." See Fed.R.Crim.P. 32.1. In making my findings of fact, I have taken judicial notice of the information set forth in the Petition on Conditional Release and the entire court file. I further note the defendant' s decision not to contest detention at this time. Weighing all of the information presently before the court, I find that detention pending revocation proceedings is warranted in this case. I specifically note that the Petition on Conditional Release indicates that on April 5, 2004, the defendant committed the offense of bank robbery. The defendant was subsequently convicted of that state law violation. The Petition also alleges that the defendant failed to attend required counseling sessions on February 16, 23, 26, March 8, 11, 15, 29, and April 1, 2004. It appears that the defendant failed to remain medication compliant on March 13, 14, 15, and 16, 2004. The court is struck by the very short time span separating the defendant' failure to comply with the medical s requirements of his conditional release and the bank robbery that resulted in his state conviction. Given the defendant' lengthy history of mental illness and psychotic behavior, his apparent failure s to comply with the medical counseling and medication requirements associated with his conditional release, and his felony conviction for bank robbery, I find there is no combination of conditions that I could set that would properly assure the defendant' appearance at further s proceedings in this case or reasonably assure the safety of the community.