Opinion ID: 3061649
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Superceding Petition and Evidentiary Hearing

Text: On April 13, 2009, the probation officer filed a superceding petition that alleged an additional violation, namely that on May 18, 2008, Fiore committed the state crime of uttering a forged check (count 5). Judge Kovachevich then vacated her March 24, 2009 order finding Fiore guilty on counts 1 through 4. On May 5, 2009, Judge Kovachevich held an evidentiary hearing on the newly alleged violation in count 5. The government called Larry Arevalo, the alleged victim of the forged check offense. Arevalo testified that Fiore was living with him at the time of the offense. Fiore and Arevalo’s girlfriend met while in drug rehabilitation. Arevalo agreed to let Fiore live in his house. In exchange, Fiore promised to transfer $20,000 into Arevalo’s bank account so that Arevalo could buy a car. Fiore told Arevalo he needed Arevalo’s routing and account numbers to deposit the money. Arevalo gave Fiore a blank check with that information on it. Later, when Arevalo checked his online statement, he discovered that a $900 check had been written on his account. The government introduced a check for $900 made out to Robert Fiore and signed with Arevalo’s name. Arevalo denied signing the check or authorizing 3 anyone else to do so. Upon discovering the check, Arevalo confronted Fiore, who apologized and promised to repay Arevalo. Instead, Fiore fled Arevalo’s house, leaving all his personal property. During cross-examination, Arevalo admitted that he had filed a criminal complaint against his girlfriend for forging a check shortly after the incident with Fiore. Arevalo further admitted that his girlfriend had previously used an ATM to withdraw money from his account without his permission. After the government rested, Judge Kovachevich granted Fiore’s request for a continuance to look for Arevalo’s girlfriend as a possible exculpatory witness. C. Continuance and Judge Kovachevich’s Recusal Before a second hearing could be held, Judge Kovachevich received a threatening letter from Fiore. On June 17, 2009, Judge Kovachevich recused, and the case was reassigned to another district court judge, Judge Virginia Hernandez Covington. On June 18, 2009, the district court granted defense counsel’s unopposed motion to determine Fiore’s competency. After a psychological evaluation indicated that Fiore could not understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings, the district court granted defense counsel’s unopposed motion to seek mental health treatment at the Federal Medical Center in Butner, North Carolina and waiving Fiore’s right to a competency hearing. 4 D. Reconvened Revocation Proceedings On March 23, 2010, after Fiore had received treatment and his competency was restored, the district court, Judge Hernandez Covington presiding, reconvened Fiore’s revocation proceedings. The district court stated that it had reviewed the transcript of the May 5, 2009 evidentiary hearing relating to count 5. The government reiterated that it had rested its case. The district court then asked defense counsel whether Fiore had any evidence to present. Defense counsel responded, “[N]o, Your Honor, other than you’ve taken judicial notice of the transcript of the testimony of the alleged victim, also taking judicial notice of the FMC, uh, forensic evaluation - - sorry, the Federal Medical Center - - forensic evaluation, uh, dated January 8th, 2010. As well as taking judicial notice of the July 14th, 2009 forensic, uh, psychological evaluation, uh, performed by Dr. Gamache.” Defense counsel also asked whether the district court was aware that the state charges of uttering a forged instrument had been nolle prossed. The district court responded, “I am aware of - - not just aware of all of those items, I have read those items, and studied those very carefully, so I am aware of everything that both of you have called to my attention.” 5 The district court reconfirmed with defense counsel that Fiore had no further evidence to present and had admitted the violations in counts 1 through 4. The district court first adjudicated Fiore guilty of counts 1 through 4. The district court then stated it had “reviewed the transcript of the evidentiary hearing before Judge Kovachevich on May 5th, 2009, as well as the comments made by counsel that there’s no additional evidence to be presented.” The district court then found Fiore guilty of count 5, “new criminal conduct, uttering a forged instrument, occurring on May 18th, 2008.” After calculating Fiore’s imprisonment term of 21 to 27 months under the Sentencing Guidelines, the district court asked whether there were any objections to its findings. Defense counsel responded, “[A]s to the finding of uttering a forged instrument, we do object. As to the other four, no.” The district court overruled Fiore’s objection. In mitigation, defense counsel argued, inter alia, that the check-victim witness’s testimony was not completely credible, stating “I’m not trying to relitigate the issues, but that transcript of that victim statement about coming to see him at the hospital after Mr. Fiore committed a crime against him. I mean, that just shows that there’s got to be something to this [case] more than what [he] is saying, that Mr. Fiore would buy him a $20,000 car after just meeting him out of a 6 drug rehab clinic because he knew his girlfriend, but that’s just - - I’m just summarizing that.” The district court revoked Fiore’s supervised release and imposed a 27-month sentence. Fiore filed this appeal.