Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Randle

United States District Court, D. Oregon

March 27, 2018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
GERALD DUANE RANDLE, Defendant.

          BILLY J. WILLIAMS United States Attorney LEAH K. BOLSTAD Assistant United States Attorney Attorneys for Plaintiff.

          LISA C. HAY Federal Public Def ender THOMAS EUGENE PRICE Assistant Federal Public Defender Attorneys for Defendant.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          ANNA J. BROWN, UNITED STATES SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Gerald Duane Randle's Motion (#72-1) to Reconsider Sentence or in the Alternative Reopen Sentencing Hearing and Motion (#72-2) for Discovery. For the reasons that follow, the Court DENIES Defendant's Motions.

         BACKGROUND

         Following Defendant's guilty pleas to the crime of Felon in Possession of a Firearm, Senior Judge Garr M. King sentenced Defendant on February 6, 2012, to a term of 68-months imprisonment to be followed by a three-year term of supervised release. Defendant began his first term of supervised release on January 7, 2016.

         On May 11, 2016, this Court revoked Defendant's supervised release and sentenced Defendant to a term of 10-months imprisonment to be followed by 26 months of reimposed supervision. Defendant began his second term of reimposed supervised release on November 29, 2016.

         On November 21, 2017, the Court held a hearing to determine whether Defendant violated the terms of his supervised release.

         On November 28, 2017, the Court entered an Order in which it noted Defendant admitted at the November 21, 2017, hearing that he violated the terms of his supervised release, and the Court continued Defendant's supervised release with additional conditions including, among other things, that Defendant have "no contact with . . . Porter."[1]

         On December 15, 2017, the Court issued a Warrant of Arrest and Order to Show Cause why Defendant's term of supervised release should not be revoked based on his probation officer's allegations that Defendant violated the conditions of release when he failed to follow a curfew or home-detention schedule and failed to participate in a mental-health treatment program.

         On January 3, 2018, the Court issued an Amended Warrant of Arrest and Order to Show Cause why Defendant's term of supervised release should not be revoked based on his probation officer's allegations that Defendant violated the conditions of his release when he failed to follow a curfew or home-detention schedule and failed to answer truthfully all inquiries by the probation officer.

         On January 8, 2018, the Court issued another Amended Warrant of Arrest and Order to Show Cause why Defendant's term of supervised release should not be revoked based on his probation officer's allegations that Defendant also violated the conditions of release when he had contact with Porter. Specifically, the Amended Warrant noted telephone records from the Multnomah County Jail indicate Defendant called Porter "138 times between December 19, 2017, and January 5, 2018. Of those calls, 35 were completed."

         On January 10, 2018, the Court held a hearing to determine whether Defendant violated the conditions of supervised release as alleged. Defendant appeared at the hearing with counsel. At the hearing Defendant admitted he failed to follow a curfew or home-detention schedule and failed to participate in a mental-health treatment program. Defendant, however, disputed the allegation that he violated his no-contact condition.

         At the hearing Probation Officer Brian Ring testified he spoke with Defendant shortly after the Court issued its November 28, 2017, Order and reminded Defendant that he "was to have no contact with . . . Porter or go[] to her apartment complex without advanced prior approval from the probation office." Hearing Tr. at 8. Officer Ring detailed in his testimony various ways that Defendant violated his supervised release by failing to follow his curfew or home-detention schedule on at least two occasions, failing to attend his mental-health treatment program, telephoning Porter 138 times, and having telephone conversations with her 35 times. Officer Ring also testified he listened to recordings of several of the telephone conversations, and the conversations did not contain any discussion of childcare.[2] During the hearing Thomas Price, defense counsel, asked Officer Ring "just to confirm . . . that there's no evidence that [Defendant] ever had any face-to-face personal contact with Ms. Porter." Tr. at 21. Assistant United States Attorney Leah Bolstad objected on the grounds of "some privacy and confidentiality and safety issues." Tr. 21. The Court overruled the objection, and Price subsequently rephrased the question in an effort "to confirm . . . [whether Officer Ring] ha[d] any indication that [Defendant] had any face-to-face contact with Ms. Porter." Tr. 22. Before Officer Ring answered, the Court asked the government "to confirm that the allegation [forming the basis of the supervised-release violation] does not rest on any face-to-face contact. Is that right?" AUSA Bolstad stated: "The violation alleged is no contact. The facts supporting that allegation are purely phone-related." Tr. 22. The Court noted Defendant, therefore, would only "be sanctioned for [telephone contact] in the event the Court finds a violation"; concluded Price's question was beyond the scope of the issue; and directed counsel to move on. After Defendant offered a statement on his violations, the Court adopted the government's recommended 24-month revocation term explaining:

[Defendant, ] [y]ou're manipulating these processes in a way that really concerns me. You are not being truthful, and this is only getting worse. Every time you're given an opportunity to set the path again after revocation and after sanction, you get in deeper. This is a real problem. I can't trust you. That's where we start. So I don't want to hear any more about the no-contact ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.