Opinion ID: 1118589
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: statement of facts relating to revocation of defendant's probation.

Text: Defendant was placed on a 180 day rider, after which he was returned to the District Court. On February 27, 1990, the hearing was held and the Court placed Defendant on probation. At the hearing the Court also said: `Also, you will not contact your wife in any fashion. You will not go onto her premises into her dwelling without any exception.' However, the Defendant was granted permission by the court to go to the house to obtain clothing, a vehicle, and some personal items. After going to his home with his attorney [Wood], Defendant entered the home by breaking the doorjamb. [5]  To this point there was no written order of the District Court and the Defendant had not been signed up with the Probation office. Defendant's wife [Dorothy] was suing him for divorce at the time, and her attorney contacted the District Court Judge and advised him of the break-in, whereon the Judge contacted Probation and Parole and asked for a report. Upon receipt of the report, the Judge issued a Bench Warrant for the arrest of Defendant. After his arrest, Defendant denied that he had violated his probation and a hearing was held on March 2, 1990. Defendant's estranged wife testified that Mr. Martinez [Russell's stepfather] telephoned her and said the Defendant would like to talk to her. `A. He called, he said, Richard would like to talk to you. And I indicated to him at that time, I said, Why didn't he contact me or talk to me before they decided to break into my house yesterday? Tony said, I don't know about that. I said, Then I suggest you ask him about that. He said, All he wants to talk to you about is your taxes. And I said, I suggest he call and talk to the attorneys about it, then, and I hung up.' `Q. That was the extent of the whole conversation?' `A. That was the extent of the phone call.' The Defendant's wife was not upset about Tony Martinez calling her. `Q. (By Mr. Wood) Why was it that this telephone call upset you, or did it?' `A. I didn't say it had, no.' `Q. You were upset, instead, incident that happened earlier at the house?' `A. Definitely.' Tony Martinez, the Defendant's stepfather, had telephoned Mrs. Russell, the Defendant's wife, on many other occasions as a go-between. She testified as follows: `Q. Have you spoken with Tony Martinez on previous occasions about various things concerning you and Richard?' `A. Tony has called me on several occasions concerning things that Richard has asked him to ask me about.' Mr. Martinez testified as follows: `Q. Had you called Dorothy before on behalf of Richard?' `A. Yeah, previously before, yes.' `Q. Had she objected at any other time that you had called her?' `A. No, no, we have always talked, you know, we have been friends for 30 years, you know.' The Defendant also testified: `A. Well, my friend Tony has been the go-between between myself and my wife for these past nine months. And to me the question of what was the matter with my pickup because it was totally unsafe to drive, whether it had insurance or not, and I had one other  oh, if she could find the receipts where I had paid the court ordered fines and restitution, to me those were very important items, and he's always been able to be the go-between between us without creating any hard feelings.' The Court found that `... the Defendant is in violation of his probation, specifically the Court order regarding having no contact with his wife.' The Court said, `And the Court does find the defendant to be in violation of his probation for violating the specific order that he was not to contact or make any effort to contact his wife. That was a direct order from this Court. The court finds by a preponderance of the evidence the fact that Mr. Martinez called the wife, the Court finds that he was simply a conduit of Mr. Russell, he did so at Mr. Russell's request.'