Opinion ID: 527043
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Thirteen-Month Delay

Text: 14 As both parties acknowledge, this court's decisions in United States v. Scott, 850 F.2d 316 (7th Cir.1988), and United States v. Williams, 787 F.2d 1182 (7th Cir.1986), provide the principal guidance in this circuit with respect to the matter of delay in disposing of probation revocation petitions. Scott squarely holds that, in assessing the impact of delay on the substantial rights of the probationer, we are to be guided by what Judge Oakes has termed the somewhat analogous context of the Sixth Amendment right to speedy trial. United States v. Companion, 545 F.2d 308, 311 (2d Cir.1976). 3 In Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972), the Supreme Court held that the following factors ought to be weighed in assessing the significance of a delay: 1) length of delay; 2) reason for the delay; 3) the defendant's assertion of his right; and 4) prejudice to the defendant. 407 U.S. at 530, 92 S.Ct. at 2192. To these factors, Scott adds, in an effort to tailor the inquiry to the unique circumstances of probation revocation, another factor: the reason why the probationer was in custody. 850 F.2d at 320. 15 In applying this analysis to the case before us, our starting point is the length of the delay. A thirteen-month delay must, as Chief Judge Bauer wrote in Scott, give[ ] us pause. Id. It requires that our scrutiny of the remaining factors be a demanding one. When we turn to the remaining factors, it becomes quite evident that, at least on this record, the factual inquiry necessary for the assessment of each overlaps significantly. Therefore, our analysis of each factor necessarily must overlap with our analysis of the others. Consequently, a chronological assessment of the proceedings is most appropriate. 16 At the outset, it must be noted that the probation authorities fulfilled their initial responsibilities most expeditiously. A petition for probation action was filed four days after Mr. Rasmussen was arrested in Missouri. Mr. Rasmussen and his attorneys therefore had notice, actual or constructive, of the United States Probation Office's intentions throughout the disposition of the Missouri- and Indiana-based charges. It certainly was not unreasonable to postpone action on the probation revocation petition until after the disposition of the Missouri-based charges. Since some of the alleged probation violations were based on those charges, the result of the Missouri criminal trial, if it resulted in a finding of guilty, would conclusively establish the probation violation. Carchman v. Nash, 473 U.S. 716, 731, 105 S.Ct. 3401, 3409, 87 L.Ed.2d 516 (1985). 4 Moreover, throughout that period, Mr. Rasmussen made no demand for resolution of the probation revocation petition. 5 Immediately after the disposition of those charges through the entry of a judgment of conviction and sentence, a detainer 6 was lodged against Mr. Rasmussen that made it clear that the probation revocation matter still was pending. 17 The delay between the filing of that detainer in July 1987 and Mr. Rasmussen's request that the matter be resolved in January 1988 is, of course, the most problematic portion of the period. The government quite frankly admits that its inaction was due to the reassignment of the case from a departing government attorney to a colleague--hardly, standing alone, an acceptable reason for a six-month delay. Government's Br. at 19. It is important to note, however, that, during that period, Mr. Rasmussen's incarceration was not attributable principally to the alleged probation violation. Rather, it was due to the sentence of confinement imposed by the federal court in Missouri. It is also significant that, throughout this time, Mr. Rasmussen made no demand for resolution of these charges. As the Supreme Court has explicitly noted, once a probationer is convicted of an offense that will constitute a probation violation,  'the only remaining inquiry is whether continued release is justified notwithstanding the violation. This is uniquely a prediction as to the ability of the individual to live in society without committing anti-social acts. In making this prophecy, a [probationer's] record can perhaps be one of the most significant factors.'  Nash, 473 U.S. at 733, 105 S.Ct. at 3410 (quoting Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78, 89, 97 S.Ct. 274, 279, 50 L.Ed.2d 236 (1976) (quoting Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 480, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 2599, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972))).  'Given the predictive nature of the hearing, it is appropriate that such hearing be held at the time at which prediction is both most relevant and most accurate--at the expiration of the [probationer's] intervening sentence.'  Nash, 473 U.S. at 733, 105 S.Ct. at 3410 (quoting Moody, 429 U.S. at 89, 97 S.Ct. at 279). As the Supreme Court noted in Nash, the decision whether to request expeditious disposition [of a probation-violation charge] lies with the prisoner, and there are circumstances under which the prisoner may have a legitimate interest in obtaining prompt disposition of a probation-violation charge underlying a detainer. 473 U.S. at 733, 105 S.Ct. at 3410. 18 When Mr. Rasmussen requested disposition of the probation revocation petition in January 1988, both the government and the district court proceeded to dispose of the matter with a dispatch commensurate with other judicial business pending before the court. In his brief, Mr. Rasmussen asserts, in conclusory fashion, that he was harmed specifically by the delay because, at some unspecified date, presumably in February 1988, the Parole Commission considered his release date on the Missouri- and Indiana-based charges without the benefit of a definitive resolution of the probation matter. However, no representation is made to us that the district court was apprised of the pendency of this matter. In any event, we believe that, had the effect of the detainer on the outcome of this parole hearing been a matter of concern to Mr. Rasmussen, he should have demanded disposition of the probation revocation petition before his January 1988 request. 19 Finally, we are constrained to note that, had the district court believed that Mr. Rasmussen had suffered any prejudice by the delay, that prejudice could have been cured by the court's ordering that the sentence imposed on revocation of the probation be retroactively concurrent with the sentence imposed by the Missouri federal court. See Williams, 787 F.2d at 1184. 20 Accordingly, Mr. Rasmussen is not entitled to any relief because of the delay in disposing of the petition to revoke his probation.