Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_04-cr-02195/USCOURTS-azd-4_04-cr-02195-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mary Elizabeth Schipke
Defendant
United States of America
Plaintiff

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

MARY ELIZABETH SCHIPKE,

Defendant. __________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. CR 04-02195-TUC-JMR(BPV)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

ON PETITION TO REVOKE

SUPERVISED RELEASE

The Defendant, Mary Elizabeth Schipke, has been accused of violating the terms of

her supervised release [Doc. 388]. The matter came on for hearing before the Court on

October 31, 2008. The Government called three witnesses: District of Arizona Probation

Officers Cole Geery and Donna Salazar and Northern District of Texas Probation Officer

Mark Briones. The Defendant called her former Counsel, Heather Williams, and Defendant

Mary Elizabeth Schipke.

The Court, having considered the briefing, arguments, and evidence presented,

recommends that the District Judge, after his independent review and consideration, enter an

order finding the Defendant in violation of her conditions of supervised release.

* * *

* * *

* * *

* * *

* * *

Case 4:04-cr-02195-CKJ-BPV Document 406 Filed 11/05/08 Page 1 of 3
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 -

FACTS

On February 28, 2006, the Defendant was sentenced to a 48 month term of

imprisonment, to be followed by 60 months of supervised release [Ex. 1]. On September 19,

2008, Probation Officer Briones met with the Defendant to explain the conditions of her

supervised release. The Defendant acknowledged in writing that the terms had been read to

her, but that she “legally contested them” [Ex. 1].

The Petition to Revoke Defendant’s Supervised Release alleges that Defendant failed

to notify the probation officer at least ten days prior of any change in residence or

employment [Doc. 388]. The basis for the Petition is that, upon her release from prison, the

Defendant was placed in a battered women’s shelter, but she had to be relocated to another

facility because she was not a battered woman. Probation Officer Briones directed

Defendant to reside at the Presbyterian Night Shelter. The Defendant arrived at the shelter,

but did not admit herself. Instead, she made her own personal arrangements for her housing.

When the Defendant did not reside at the shelter, she became unavailable for supervision.

The Defendant, in effect, took control of her own supervision by calling her former attorney

and her probation officer whenever she desired, rather than when she was directed to do so.

CONCLUSION

The Defendant did not reside where she was told to reside. The Defendant did not

reside at the shelter and did not give the ten day notice required prior to a change in address.

The Defendant violated the technical nature of the alleged violation. She directly and

willfully violated Supervised Release Condition 4: “You shall follow the instructions of the

probation officer.”

It is the recommendation of this Court that the District Judge, after his independent

review and consideration, find the Defendant in violation of the alleged charge or accept a

Government motion to amend the charge to conform to the evidence. If a motion is filed, the

Defendant can claim no surprise because part of her defense was that she was improperly

charged.

Case 4:04-cr-02195-CKJ-BPV Document 406 Filed 11/05/08 Page 2 of 3
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

- 3 -

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B), the parties have ten days from the date of this

Report and Recommendation to file written objections to these findings and

recommendations with the District Court. Any objections filed should be filed as CR 04-

02195-TUC-JMR.

DATED this 5th day of November, 2008.

Case 4:04-cr-02195-CKJ-BPV Document 406 Filed 11/05/08 Page 3 of 3