Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Guidry

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


September 2, 2009

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
DAVID GUIDRY, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge: Hon. Lawrence K. Karlton

ORDER RE REQUEST FOR HEARING REGARDING STATUS OF MOTION FOR DISCHARGE OR CONDITIONAL RELEASE HEARING

Date: October 6, 2009

TO THE HONORABLE LAWRENCE K. KARLTON AND THE PARTIES HERETO:

David Guidry moves pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 4247(h)for an Order of Discharge or Conditional Release. He also moves for his immediate release because this Court expressly limited any recommitment for hospitalization on a Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity verdict to a period of time Mr. Guidry has already served. This Motion is supported by the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities.

Background

On December 5, 1997, in U.S. District Court of Oregon, Mr. Guidry was found not guilty by reason of insanity for the charge of attempted rape. Mr. Guidry was subsequently committed to the custody of the Attorney General for hospitalization until such time as the director of the facility in which he was hospitalized determined that he had recovered from his mental disease and defect to such extent that his release under a prescribed regimen of medical, psychiatric, or psychological care or treatment, would no longer create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage to the property of another.

Mr. Guidry was released on August 10, 2000. Within two weeks, he committed a bank robbery in the Eastern District of California for which this Court sentenced him to 96 months. Evidently, this Court also imposed judgment in the District of Oregon case as if it were a related supervised release violation.

Following imposition of the 96 month sentence, the following occurred in open court as set forth in the attached transcript. (Exhibit A).

THE COURT: (Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton) Defendant is remanded to the custody of the marshal.

MR. TISE-RASKIN: Your Honor, there is one additional matter, if I may?

There is the pronouncement of the judgment in connection with the companion case for violation of the petition.

THE COURT: Court finds that the defendant violated and is sentenced to whatever the maximum is to run concurrent.

THE DEFENDANT: Thank you very much.

MR. TICE-RASKIN: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. REICHEL: Your Honor, before I finish though, the Court said whatever the maximum may be to run concurrent. The maximum, that's my concern.

THE COURT: Oh, if the maximum exceeds -- it is 96 months.

MR. REICHEL: Thank you, your Honor.

RT 4/23/2002, pp. 8:5 - 9:14.

"He was then recommitted under Title 18, U.S.C., Section 4243(e), to MCFP in Springfield, Missouri on October 8, 2002."

See Risk Assessment Review Report p.1, February 25, 2009 (Exhibit B).

After completing his bank robbery sentence,

Mr. Guidry was particularly preoccupied with his commitment, insisting that his sentence had expired and that he was supposed to be released. Although it was explained to him on multiple occasions that he was committed under 18 U.S.C. 4243, Mr. Gruidry did not appear to understand.

****

Ultimately, his agitation led to his placement in the locked mental health unit, where he was heard angrily ranting about members of the Risk Assessment Panel, who he accused of "fucking with my release date."

Id. p.3.

The February 25, 2009, Risk Assessment Review Report recommends to this Court that the patient [Mr. Guidry] continue to be committed under

18 U.S.C. 4243(e). Id. p.6.

Discussion

Mr. Guidry has a statutory right, under 18 U.S.C. § 4247(h), for a discharge hearing. Section 4247(h) provides that "counsel for the [hospitalized] person or his legal guardian may, at any time during such person's hospitalization, file with the Court that ordered that commitment a motion for a hearing to determine whether the person should be discharged from such facility..." United States v. Budell, 187 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 1999).

Mr. Guidry hereby requests a discharge hearing before this Court as soon as possible. Mr. Guidry further requests clarification of this Court's judgment running his bank robbery sentence and recommitment concurrently.

Conclusion

Mr. Guidry's Motion for Discharge or Conditional Release Hearing should be granted.

WHEREFORE, defendant prays for his discharge from the custody of the Attorney General and for such other relief to which he may be entitled.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant David Guidry, Register No. 85957-011, be brought before this court on whether or not he should continue to be held by the Attorney General of the United States or whether Defendant Guidry should be discharged or granted conditional release.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Federal Defender for the Eastern District of California and am a person of such age and discretion as to be competent to serve papers. On August 31, 2009, I served a true and correct copy of the attached:

Request for Hearing Regarding Status of Motion for Discharge or Conditional Release Hearing by depositing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid in the United States mail, at Sacramento, California, addressed as follows:

MCFP Springfield Director Medical Center/Federal Prisons P.O. Box 4000 Springfield, MO 65801 I declare under penalty of perjury the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Executed this 31st day of August, 2009, Sacramento, California.

20090902

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.