Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04152/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04152-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lisa Marie Destefano
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

One general condition of Destefano’s probation requires that she “not commit

another federal, state, or local crime.”

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-4152

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff-Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Lisa Marie Destefano, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendant-Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 18, 2006

Filed: May 3, 2006 

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, LAY and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

I. BACKGROUND

In 2002, Lisa Marie Destefano pled guilty to bank fraud and was sentenced to

five years of probation. On September 15, 2005, Destefano’s probation officer filed

the first of two violation reports, alleging she violated a general condition of her

probation1

 when she helped pass two forged checks and attempted to pass a third for

$4,500 each on August 16, 2005. The checks were passed at three branches of Arvest

Appellate Case: 05-4152 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/03/2006 Entry ID: 2040338
2

The probation officer’s report notes that Destefano and another individual,

David Reynolds, fled before obtaining any monies during the attempted fraud in

Anderson, Missouri.

3

The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

-2-

Bank in Lowell, Arkansas; Bentonville, Arkansas; and Anderson, Missouri.2

 The

report also stated that Destefano had violated certain other conditions of her probation,

such as leaving the district without permission, using illegal drugs, and associating

with a felon. 

On October 28, 2005, Destefano’s probation officer filed a supplemental

violation report, alleging further violations of the general conditions of her probation.

The report detailed the results of a search of Destefano’s residence, where officers

seized several items associated with fraudulent conduct. Specifically, officers

recovered, among other things, approximately $6,500 in cash, approximately fifty

blank identification cards, the driver’s license of Brooke A. Smith, and the social

security card of Kayla Denise Tarwater. The report also alleged that Destefano

intentionally set fire to her van in an attempt to fraudulently collect insurance monies.

A probation violation hearing was held on November 10, 2005. At the hearing,

Destefano admitted leaving the district without permission, using illegal drugs, and

associating with a felon. However, she contested the remaining offenses alleged in

the two violation reports. After hearing testimony, the district court concluded that

Destefano had: (1) engaged in a scheme to defraud individuals of money in August

2005; (2) possessed proceeds of illegal activity in her home; (3) possessed equipment

for the purpose of committing a future fraud or frauds; (4) possessed the identification

of others without their consent; and (5) engaged in a scheme to defraud her insurance

company. The district court3

 then revoked Destefano’s probation and re-sentenced her

Appellate Case: 05-4152 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/03/2006 Entry ID: 2040338
4

Destefano’s procedural due process claim borders dangerously on a violation

of Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9)(A). We will nevertheless construe her argument to reflect

the portions of Sutton cited in her brief. See Sutton, 607 F.2d at 221-22. 

-3-

to a thirty-six month term of imprisonment followed by a three-year term of

supervised release. 

Destefano now appeals the district court’s order, alleging it abused its discretion

and violated her due process rights by revoking her probation.

II. DISCUSSION

Destefano first argues that her procedural due process rights were violated when

the district court revoked her probation. However, Destefano did not raise this

objection during the preliminary hearing, and we therefore review this claim for plain

error. United States v. Morris, 18 F.3d 562, 566 (8th Cir. 1994); see also Fed. R.

Crim. P. 52(b). 

We note that Destefano has failed to specify the precise nature of her procedural

due process grievance and only vaguely alludes to it by quoting language from our

decision in United States v. Sutton, 607 F.2d 220, 221-22 (8th Cir. 1979).4

 In the

relevant portion of Sutton, we held that due process requires that a probationer who

is in custody for an alleged probation violation be afforded a prompt “preliminary

hearing to determine whether probable cause exists to believe that a probation

violation has occurred.” Id. at 222 (citing Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 781-82

(1973)); see also Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(b)(1)(A). 

Destefano was arrested on September 19, 2005. Two days later, she was

brought before a magistrate judge who conducted a preliminary hearing to determine

probable cause. To the extent Destefano now argues her due process rights were

Appellate Case: 05-4152 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/03/2006 Entry ID: 2040338
-4-

violated because she was not afforded a prompt preliminary hearing, this claim is

without merit.

Destefano next argues the district court erred when it revoked her probation.

We review this claim for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Shangreaux, 897

F.2d 939, 941 (8th Cir. 1990). “Revocation of probation requires only enough

evidence, within a sound judicial discretion, to satisfy the district judge that the

conduct of the probationer has not met the conditions of probation.” United States v.

Leigh, 276 F.3d 1011, 1012 (8th Cir. 2002) (internal citations and quotations omitted).

To warrant revocation, the violation of probation must be substantial. Id. Revocation

is not appropriate where the violation, or accumulation of violations, are merely

technical in nature. Id. 

The record is replete with evidence documenting Destefano’s substantive

probation violations. First, there is substantial record evidence linking Destefano to

the three frauds committed on August 16, 2005. Second, the record supports the

conclusion that Destefano submitted a fraudulent insurance claim. Finally, evidence

recovered by law enforcement during a search of Destefano’s home supports the

district court’s finding that she possessed proceeds of illegal activity, possessed

equipment for the purpose of committing a future fraud, and possessed the

identification documents of others without their consent. Therefore, the district court

did not abuse its discretion when it revoked Destefano’s probation.

III. CONCLUSION

For the aforementioned reasons, we affirm the district court’s order.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-4152 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/03/2006 Entry ID: 2040338