Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_04-cr-01243/USCOURTS-azd-3_04-cr-01243-0/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 a term of 27 months in prison and

a term of 36 months supervised released. Dkt. #24. Defendant’s probation officer filed a

petition to revoke supervised release on October 11, 2006. Dkt. #27. An arrest warrant

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 its 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 the 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 custody.

Dkt. #31 at 2-3 (citing Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 488 (1972); Moody v. Daggett,

429 U.S. 78, 86-87 (1976)); see 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). Defendant counters

Case 3:04-cr-01243-DGC Document 34 Filed 10/28/08 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 -

in his reply that he was taken into custody by his federal probation officer and then turned

over to state authorities. Dkt. #32.

IT IS ORDERED that the Government shall file a sur-reply by November 7, 2008,

addressing whether Defendant was taken into custody by his federal probation officer

pursuant to the federal arrest warrant issued on October 11, 2006 (Dkt. #28), and, if so, the

effect of that fact on the Government’s position.

DATED this 28th day of October, 2008.

Case 3:04-cr-01243-DGC Document 34 Filed 10/28/08 Page 2 of 2