Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_04-cr-01243/USCOURTS-azd-3_04-cr-01243-1/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. Dkt. #24. Defendant’s probation officer filed a petition to

revoke the supervised release on October 11, 2006. Dkt. #27. An arrest warrant was issued

the same day. Dkt. #28. Defendant currently is serving a state prison sentence.

Defendant has filed a motion for speedy trial. Dkt. #29. 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 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) (“A 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). 

Case 3:04-cr-01243-DGC Document 36 Filed 12/23/08 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 -

Defendant countered by arguing that he was taken into custody by his federal

probation officer and then turned over to state authorities. Dkt. #32. The Court directed the

Government to file a sur-reply explaining the circumstances under which Defendant was

arrested. Dkt. #34. The Government has now filed a supplemental response explaining that

Defendant was taken into custody by state authorities while at his federal probation officer’s

office. Defendant was not arrested by his federal probation officer. 

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 a Quick and Speedy Trial (Dkt. #29)

is denied.

DATED this 22nd day of December, 2008.

Case 3:04-cr-01243-DGC Document 36 Filed 12/23/08 Page 2 of 2