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. Patton

United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division

November 2, 2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
JACKIE L. PATTON, Defendant.

          MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION.

          Debra McVicker Lynch United States Magistrate Judge.

         This matter is before the undersigned according to the Order entered by the Honorable Sarah Evans Barker, directing the duty magistrate judge to conduct a hearing on the Petition for Warrant or Summons for Offender Under Supervision (“Petition”) filed on August 28, 2017, and to submit proposed Findings of Facts and Recommendations for disposition under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3401(i) and 3583(e). Proceedings were held on October 24, 2017, in accordance with Rule 32.1 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.[1]

         On October 24, 2017, defendant Jackie L. Patton appeared in person with his appointed counsel, Joseph Cleary. The government appeared by Brad Shepard, Assistant United States Attorney. The United States Probation Office (“USPO”) appeared by Officer Mark McCleese, who participated in the proceedings.

         The court conducted the following procedures in accordance with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 3583:

         1. The court advised Mr. Patton of his right to remain silent, his right to counsel, and his right to be advised of the charges against him. The court asked Mr. Patton questions to ensure that he had the ability to understand the proceedings and his rights.

         2. A copy of the Petition was provided to Mr. Patton and his counsel, who informed the court they had reviewed the Petition and that Mr. Patton understood the violations alleged. Mr. Patton waived further reading of the Petition.

         3. The court advised Mr. Patton of his right to a preliminary hearing and its purpose in regard to the alleged violations of his supervised release specified in the Petition. Mr. Patton was advised of the rights he would have at a preliminary hearing. Mr. Patton stated that he wished to waive his right to a preliminary hearing.

         4. Mr. Patton stipulated that there is a basis in fact to hold him on the specifications of violations of supervised release as set forth in the Petition. Mr. Patton executed a written waiver of the preliminary hearing, which the court accepted.

         5. The court advised Mr. Patton of his right to a hearing on the Petition and of his rights in connection with a hearing. The court specifically advised him that at a hearing, he would have the right to present evidence, to cross-examine any witnesses presented by the United States, and to question witnesses against him unless the court determined that the interests of justice did not require a witness to appear.

         6. Mr. Patton, through his counsel, advised that he wanted to waive his right to a hearing and admit the alleged violations. The court asked Mr. Patton a series of questions to ensure his decision was knowing and voluntary.

         7. Mr. Patton, by counsel, stipulated that he committed Violation Number 1 and 2 set forth in the Petition as follows:

Violation Number

Nature of Noncompliance

1.

The defendant shall not commit another federal, state or local crime.”

On August 15, 2017, after initiating a narcotics investigation, Bloomington, Indiana, Police Department discovered approximately 4 ounces of methamphetamine, a firearm, and a large sum of money in a vehicle occupied by Mr. Patton. According to the police report, Mr. Patton admitted additional methamphetamine and another firearm was inside his residence, which law enforcement obtained a search warrant and seized the items. This investigation is ongoing.

2.

The defendant shall refrain from any unlawful use of a controlled substance.”

Mr. Patton tested positive for amphetamines on January 11, 2017, and March 29, 2017, and he admitted methamphetamine use each time.

         8. The court placed Mr. Patton under oath and directly inquired of Mr. Patton whether he admitted violation 1 and 2 of his supervised release set forth above. Mr. Patton admitted the violations as set forth above.

         9. The Government orally moved to dismiss violation 3 upon approval ...


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.