Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_04-cr-01243/USCOURTS-azd-3_04-cr-01243-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Plaintiff
Alejandro Valdez
Defendant

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Alejandro Valdez, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CR-04-1243-PCT-DGC 

ORDER

On February 28, 2005, Defendant was sentenced to 27 months in prison and 36 

months of supervised release. Doc. 24. On January 22, 2010, Defendant's supervised 

release was revoked and defendant was sentenced to time served followed by 24 months 

of supervised release Doc.44. Defendant=s probation officer filed a petition to revoke the 

supervised release on February 24, 2010. Doc. 45. The petition was superseded on 

August 11, 2011. Doc. 47. An arrest warrant was issued the same day. Doc. 48. 

Defendant currently is serving a state prison sentence. 

Defendant has filed a motion for hearing, re: detainers. Doc.51. In response, the 

Government cites legal authority for the proposition that a hearing on a federal petition to 

revoke supervised release is not required until after a defendant is taken into federal 

custody, and that the issuance of a warrant and the lodging of a detainer while the 

defendant is incarcerated elsewhere for a separate crime do not constitute being taken into 

Case 3:04-cr-01243-DGC Document 53 Filed 01/25/13 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 2 -

federal custody. See Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 488 (1972); Moody v. Daggett, 

429 U.S. 78, 86-87 (1976); United States v. Garrett, 253 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2001) 

(AA revocation hearing . . . need only be tendered promptly after the violation warrant is 

executed, because a parolee does not suffer a loss of liberty as a parole violator until he is 

taken into custody under the violation warrant.@) (emphasis in original). 

Defendant has submitted no evidence to counter the Government=s assertion. 

Because it appears that Defendant has not been arrested on his federal warrant, the Court 

is not obligated to schedule a hearing on his supervised release violation. Defendant will 

be entitled to a hearing on that violation once he is taken into federal custody. 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant=s Motion for hearing re: detainers (doc. 51) is 

denied. 

 Dated this 25th day of January, 2013. 

Case 3:04-cr-01243-DGC Document 53 Filed 01/25/13 Page 2 of 2