Free Petition/Order Modifying Conditions of Supervision - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:04-cr-00423-MSK
PROB12 (02/05-D/CO)

Document 36

Filed 03/14/2006

Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO U. S. A. vs. Christina D. Ortiz Docket Number: 04-cr-00423-MSK-01

Petition for Issuance of a Summons because of Violations of Probation COMES NOW, Patrick J. Lynch, probation officer of the court, presenting an official report upon the conduct and attitude of Christina D. Ortiz who was placed on supervision by the Honorable Marcia S. Krieger sitting in the court at Denver, Colorado, on the 6th day of June 2005, who fixed the period of supervision at three (3) years, and imposed the general terms and conditions theretofore adopted by the court and also imposed special conditions and terms as follows: 1. The defendant shall participate in a program of mental health treatment, as directed by the probation officer, until such time as the defendant is released from the program by the probation officer. The defendant will be required to pay the cost of treatment as directed by the probation officer. The court authorizes the probation officer to release psychological reports and/or the presentence report to the treatment agency for continuity of treatment. The defendant shall not incur new credit charges or open additional lines of credit without the approval of the probation officer, unless she is in compliance with the periodic payment obligations imposed pursuant to the court' judgment and sentence. s The defendant shall reside in a community corrections center for a period of six months to commence on July 5, 2005, or as soon as a bed is available, and shall observe the rules of that facility. The defendant and probation officer, within 60 days of entry date of judgment, will formulate a repayment schedule for the restitution amount and that such schedules be submitted to the court for approval. The defendant shall surrender on the outstanding warrant within 30 days of entry of judgment in this case.

2.

3.

4.

5.

On August 8, 2005, the court modified defendant' conditions of probation to include a special condition s requiring defendant to participate in a program of testing and treatment for drug abuse, as directed by the probation officer, until such time as the defendant is released from the program by the probation officer. The defendant shall abstain from the use of alcohol or other intoxicants during the course of treatment. The defendant will be required to pay the cost of treatment as directed by the probation officer. RESPECTFULLY PRESENTING PETITION FOR ACTION OF COURT FOR CAUSE AS FOLLOWS:
(If short insert here: if lengthy write on separate sheet and attach)

See attachment herein and hereto incorporated by reference

Case 1:04-cr-00423-MSK
PROB12 (02/05-D/CO)

Document 36

Filed 03/14/2006

Page 2 of 5

PRAYING THAT THE COURT WILL ORDER the issuance of a summons for violations of probation. ORDER OF THE COURT Considered and ordered this 14th day of March 2006, and ordered filed and made a part of the record in the above case. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. s/Patrick J. Lynch Patrick J. Lynch Senior Probation Officer s/Marcia S. Krieger Marcia S. Krieger United States District Judge Place: Denver, Colorado Date: March 13, 2006

Case 1:04-cr-00423-MSK

Document 36

Filed 03/14/2006

Page 3 of 5

ATTACHMENT
Attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference is a true copy of the Conditions of Supervision and signed by defendant on July 8, 2005. Attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated by reference is a true copy of the Acknowledgment of Conditions signed by defendant on November 8, 2005. The defendant has committed the following violations of probation: 1. POSSESSION AND USE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE:

On or about July 8, 2005, defendant used or administered a controlled substance, cocaine, which had not been prescribed for her by a physician, which constitutes a Grade C violation of probation. This charge is based on the following facts: On July 22, 2005, Senior Probation Officer Christopher J. Perez contacted Quest Diagnostics to obtain test results from a urine specimen collected on July 8, 2005. Senior Officer Perez was advised that sample tested positive for a cocaine metabolites. Defendant was confronted with this test result on July 25, 2005, but defendant did not admit using cocaine. Defendant admitted to using marijuana on two occasions and stated one of the marijuana cigarettes she smoked might have been laced with cocaine. 2. POSSESSION AND USE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE:

On or about July 22, 2005, defendant used or administered a controlled substance, cocaine, which had not been prescribed for her by a physician, which constitutes a Grade C violation of probation. This charge is based on the following facts: On July 22, 2005, defendant submitted a urine sample at Independence House South Federal (IHSF), 2765 South Federal Boulevard, Denver, Colorado 80236. This test was sent to Quest Diagnostics and later returned positive for cocaine metabolites. Senior Officer Perez confronted defendant with this test result on August 1, 2005. Defendant initially denied having used any illegal drugs but later admitted she knowingly smoked a marijuana cigarette laced with cocaine on July 20, 2005. 3. POSSESSION AND USE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE:

On or about July 25, 2005, defendant used or administered a controlled substance, cocaine, which had not been prescribed for her by a physician, which constitutes a Grade C violation of probation. This charge is based on the following facts: On July 25, 2005, defendant submitted a urine sample at the United States Probation Office. This test was sent to Quest Diagnostics and later returned positive for cocaine metabolites. Senior Officer Perez confronted defendant with this test result on August 1, 2005. Defendant initially denied having used any illegal drugs but later admitted she knowingly smoked a marijuana cigarette laced with cocaine on July 20, 2005. Defendant could not explain why the urine samples collected from her on July 22, 2005, and July 25, 2005, did not also test positive for marijuana. Defendant was adamant she did not smoke unadulterated cocaine or cocaine base. Defendant stated she uses these substances to relieve stress and help cope with her seizure disorder. Defendant

Case 1:04-cr-00423-MSK

Document 36

Filed 03/14/2006

Page 4 of 5

was informed that because she is now receiving medication (Tegretol) to control her seizures, she could no longer rely on this reasoning as an excuse for substance abuse. 4. POSSESSION AND USE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE:

On or about August 1, 2005, defendant used or administered a controlled substance, cocaine, which had not been prescribed for her by a physician, which constitutes a Grade C violation of probation. This charge is based on the following facts: On August 1, 2005, defendant submitted a urine sample at IHSF. This test was sent to Quest Diagnostics and later returned positive for the presence of cocaine metabolites. Defendant was not directly confronted by Senior Officer Perez regarding the results of this test; however, defendant met with Senior Officer Perez on the same date of August 1, 2005, to address two prior positive urine samples. Senior Officer Perez noted that on the day of collection, defendant did not appear to be under the influence of a controlled substance. Between the time of defendant' meeting at the United States Probation Office and 4:10 p.m., the time she submitted her positive s urine sample on August 1, 2005, it appears defendant used cocaine. 5. POSSESSION AND USE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE:

On or about November 18, 2005, defendant used or administered a controlled substance, cocaine, which had not been prescribed for her by a physician, which constitutes a Grade C violation of probation. This charge is based on the following facts: On November 18, 2005, defendant submitted a urine sample at IHSF. This test was sent to Kroll Laboratories and later returned positive for the presence of cocaine metabolites. I confronted defendant with this result on November 28, 2005, and defendant admitted using cocaine on either the 14th, 15th or 16th of November 2005. According to defendant she was waiting at a bus stop after work to return to IHSF when " friends"saw her and asked if she would like a ride. Defendant accepted the ride and stated cocaine was inside their vehicle spread out on the console. Defendant reported she brushed her fingers through the cocaine and placed her fingers inside her mouth. 6. FAILURE TO PARTICIPATE IN DRUG AND ALCOHOL TREATMENT AS DIRECTED BY THE PROBATION OFFICER:

On or about January 30, 2006, defendant failed to submit a urine sample at ARTS/Crosspoint, which constitutes a Grade C violation of supervised release. This charge is based on the following facts: On February 1, 2006, I contacted defendant and informed her she failed to submit a urine sample as required on January 30, 2006. Defendant initially stated this could not occur as she calls to check if a urine sample is required on a daily basis. Defendant later acknowledged that had she called on the day in question, she would have known she was required to submit a urine sample on that date.

Case 1:04-cr-00423-MSK 7.

Document 36

Filed 03/14/2006

Page 5 of 5

POSSESSION AND USE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE:

On or about February 15, 2006, defendant used or administered a controlled substance, cocaine, which had not been prescribed for her by a physician, which constitutes a Grade C violation of probation. This charge is based on the following facts: On February 21, 2006, defendant submitted a urine sample at ARTS/Crosspoint which later returned positive for the presence of cocaine metabolites. Results of this test have not been discussed with defendant. Contact with her assigned counselor at ARTS/Crosspoint reveals defendant has made no mention of having been actively using cocaine while engaged in both individual and group counseling sessions. 8. POSSESSION AND USE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE:

On or about February 24, 2006, defendant used or administered a controlled substance, cocaine, which had not been prescribed for her by a physician, which constitutes a Grade C violation of probation. This charge is based on the following facts: On February 24, 2006, defendant submitted a urine sample at ARTS/Crosspoint which later returned positive for the presence of cocaine metabolites. Results of this test have not been discussed with defendant. Contact with her assigned counselor at ARTS/Crosspoint reveals defendant has made no mention of having been actively using cocaine while engaged in both individual and group counseling sessions.