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. Tullie

United States District Court, D. Arizona

November 16, 2018

United States of America, Plaintiff,
v.
Earlson Tullie, Defendant.

          HONORABLE DIANE J. HUMETEWA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

          FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

          Honorable Eileen S. Willett United States Magistrate Judge.

         Pending before the Court is a Petition to Revoke Supervised Release (Doc. 217) filed against Defendant Earlson Tullie on July 13, 2018. On August 9, 2018, the Defendant appeared before the Magistrate Judge for an Admit/Deny Hearing with the written consents of all counsel and the Defendant (Docs. 226, 227). The Defendant denied the allegations of the Petition to Revoke Supervised Release, and the Court set the matter for an Evidentiary Hearing. (Doc. 227).

         With written consents of all counsel and the Defendant (Doc. 226), an Evidentiary Hearing was held on September 27, 2018 and November 8, 2018 (Docs. 228, 231) in accordance with Rule 32.1(b)(2), Fed. R. Crim. P. The Magistrate Judge heard testimony from Senior U.S. Probation Officer Matthew Carey and H&H Treatment Programs' Clinical Supervisor Shelly Osbourne. The Government's Exhibit 1 was admitted into evidence. The matter was deemed submitted for decision on November 8, 2018.

         BACKGROUND

         The Defendant having entered a guilty plea to the crime of Assault of a Person Under Age 16 with Substantial Bodily Injury (Doc. 191), the Honorable Diane J. Humetewa sentenced the Defendant on June 9, 2017 to time served and two years of supervised release (Doc. 206). The Court ordered that during the term of supervision the Defendant shall comply with the mandatory and standard conditions of supervision adopted by the Court in General Order 16-23, as well as six (6) special conditions. Subsequent to a hearing held December 4, 2017 on a Petition to Schedule a Modification Hearing (Doc. 209), the Court ordered the imposition of four additional special conditions (Doc. 216). The current Petition to Revoke Supervised Release was then filed July 13, 2018 (Doc. 217).

         FINDINGS

         In the Petition to Revoke Supervised Release (Doc.217) filed on July 13, 2018, the Government alleges that the Defendant violated the following Special Conditions:

A. Special Condition #4 which states, “You shall be screened for sex offender treatment and if recommended as a result of screening, you shall participate in such treatment, abide by the policies and procedures of all the treatment and evaluation providers. You must contribute to the cost of such treatment and assessment not to exceed an amount determined to be reasonable by the probation officer based on ability to pay.
On or about July 12, 2018, Tullie failed to participate in sex offender treatment when he was unsuccessfully discharged from sex offender treatment by H&H Treatment Programs. Grade C violation § 7B1.1(a)(3).
B. Special Condition #9 which states, “You must not be in the company of or have contact with children who you know are under the age of 18, with the exception of your own children. Contact includes, but is not limited to, letters, communication devices, audio or visual devices, visits, or communication through a third party.
On or about June 28, 29, and 30, 2018, Tullie was in the company of and had contact with children he knew were under the age of 18. Grade C violation § 7B1.1(a)(3).

         Officer Carey testified that he met with the Defendant on June 12, 2017 and went over Special Condition #4 with him. On December 5, 2017, Officer Carey reviewed Special Condition #9 with the Defendant, and the Defendant signed his acknowledgment of Special Condition #9.

         At a June 25, 2018 visit to the Defendant's residence, Officer Carey observed that the Defendant's front door was pad-locked, and the Defendant denied contact with children. However, on the July 11, 2018 visit, Officer Carey observed through the window of the Defendant's pad-locked residence female children's clothing and toys, as well as a mattress and cot beside the mattress. After initially denying the presence of children in his home, the Defendant later admitted that children did reside with the Defendant for three ...


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.