United States District Court, D. Arizona
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
S. Willett United States Magistrate Judge.
HONORABLE DAVID G. CAMPBELL, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT
before the Court is a Petition to Revoke Supervised Release
(Doc. 60) filed against Defendant Terrence Begaye on April
28, 2016. On February 28, 2019, the Defendant appeared before
the Magistrate Judge for an Admit/Deny Hearing with the
written consents of all counsel and the Defendant (Doc. 69).
The Defendant denied the single allegation in the Petition to
Revoke Supervised Release, and the Court set the matter for
Evidentiary Hearing (Doc. 70).
the written consents of all counsel and the Defendant (Doc.
69), an Evidentiary Hearing was held before the Magistrate
Judge on March 20, 2019 in accordance with Fed. R. Crim. P.
32.1(b)(2). The Magistrate Judge heard testimony from United
States Probation Officer (“USPO”) Craig Haraga,
USPO Daniel Johnson, and the Defendant. The Government's
Exhibits One (1), Three (3), and Five (5) were admitted into
evidence. The matter was deemed submitted for decision on
March 20, 2019.
Defendant having entered a plea of guilty to the crime of
CIR:Assault Resulting in Serious Bodily Injury (Doc. 36), the
Honorable David G. Campbell sentenced the Defendant on June
9, 2014 to twelve (12) months in the Bureau of Prisons,
followed by three (3) years of Supervised Release (Doc. 42).
The Court ordered that, during the term of supervision, the
Defendant shall comply with the standard conditions of
supervision adopted by the Court in General Order 12-13, as
well as eight (8) special conditions. On October 27, 2014, a
Petition to Revoke Supervised Release (Doc. 44) was filed. On
December 9, 2014, the Defendant admitted to Allegation B of
the Petition, which stated that the Defendant violated
Standard Condition No. 13 by failing to notify his USPO of
being arrested or questioned by a law enforcement officer
(Doc. 54). The Court entered its Order Revoking Supervised
Release on January 26, 2015 and committed the Defendant to
six (6) months in the Bureau of Prisons followed by thirty
(30) months of supervised release (Doc. 58). The Court
affirmed standard conditions of supervised release adopted by
the Court in General Order 12-13 with one (1) special
condition (Id.). The Defendant's supervised
release most recently commenced on May 18, 2015 (Doc. 63).
Petition to Revoke Supervised Release filed on February 5,
2019 (Doc. 63 at 2), the Government alleges that the
Defendant violated the following Standard Condition:
A. Standard Condition # 3 which states, “You shall
report to the probation officer in a manner and frequency
directed by the court or probation officer.”
Begaye failed to report as directed, in person, to the
probation officer, on January 12, 2016, as evidence by
testimony of the probation officer. Grade C violation. §
Haraga identified the Defendant in open Court and testified
that he met with the Defendant on May 18, 2015. USPO Haraga
read to and reviewed with the Defendant each condition of
supervised release. The Defendant signed his conditions
(Exhibit 3). USPO Haraga then provided a copy of the
conditions of supervised release to the Defendant.
December 14 and 15, 2015, USPO Haraga notified the Defendant
by text message that the Defendant's supervision would
transfer to USPO Daniel Johnson in Phoenix. USPO Haraga
provided USPO Johnson's contact phone number to the
Defendant (Exhibit 1). The Defendant received the text
message. USPO Haraga had no further contact with the
Daniel Johnson testified that he sent the Defendant by text
message a photograph of his business card with current
contact information on January 5, 2016. USPO Johnson also
spoke by phone with the Defendant's girlfriend on January
4, 2016. By text message USPO Johnson directed the Defendant
to meet with USPO Johnson on January 12, 2016. The Defendant
acknowledged receipt of the text message and confirmed the
meeting with his USPO.
Johnson testified that the Defendant did not appear at the
Field Supervision Probation office as directed. He stated
that had the Defendant come to the office as directed, the
Defendant's signature would appear on the sign-in log
maintained each day in the reception lobby. The sign-in log
for January 12, 2016 does not contain the signature of the
Defendant (Exhibit 5). In addition, the USPO on duty in the
office would have either contacted USPO Johnson or left notes
for USPO Johnson that the Defendant had appeared as directed.
USPO Johnson neither received notification that the Defendant
was present in the lobby, nor received notes from an